Talk:Zecharia Sitchin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Criticism

People tend, when they are criticising something, to explain small facts as they understood them and not as the writer may have meant them. For example, when somebody decides to ridicule Sitchen's description of the Anunaki or the Nephilim by saying that if they were gods why not use wormhole technology instead of B movies rockets, they tend to forget that Sitchin did not AT ALL say they were gods, but he said that the people of Sumer or wherever who wrote about the encounters of those people considered them as Gods. First, according to Sitchin, at the time that this race visited earth (Nephilim), and just like any other advancing race like us humans, they had the technology of only these rockets. Furthermore, and in awe to these primitive Sumerian human observers, who had no idea what these things (rockets) were, they called them as gods. I don't really care about whether Sitchin's theories are wrong or right and I don't want to get into this discussion, although I tend to find orthodox historians and scientific studies restricted and most of the time paralyzed and blind (this in favor of Sitchin...) anyhow, I would have expected of Wikipedia to prohibit sentimental personal mocking and criticism from somebody who doesn't even understand the content of the books. In stead I would expect scientific point by point criticism so that the article doesn't seem bias, which it does... Even if Sitchin's work is completely wrong, this article, one expects, should not be humiliating or hurtful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MistaKay (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at the article, and it seems to make it clear that Sitchin thinks that the Sumerian gods were alien beings. Where does it suggest that he thought they were gods. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

William Irwin Thompson comments on what he calls Sitchin's 'literalism':

What Sitchin sees is what he needs for his theory. So figure 15 on page 42 is radiation therapy, and figure 71 on page 136 is a god inside a rocket-shaped chamber. If these are gods, why are they stuck with our cheap B movie technology of rockets, microphones, space-suits, and radiation therapy? If they are gods, then why can't they have some really divine technology such as intradimensional worm-hole travel, antigravity, starlight propulsion, or black hole bounce rematerializations? Sitchin has constructed what appears to be a convincing argument, but when he gets close to single images on ancient tablets, he falls back into the literalism of "Here is an image of the gods in rockets." Suddenly, ancient Sumer is made to look like the movie set for Destination Moon. Erich Von Däniken's potboiler Chariots of the Gods has the same problem. The plain of Nazca in Peru is turned into a World War II landing strip. The gods can cross galactic distances, but by the time they get to Peru, their spaceships are imagined as World War II prop jobs that need an enormous landing strip. This literalization of the imagination doesn't make any sense, but every time it doesn't, you hear Sitchin say "There can be no doubt, but...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MistaKay (talk • contribs) 17:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

MistaKay, (1) this forum is for discussing improvements to our articles, not for criticizing the critics; (2) your criticism appears to be based on a misreading of Thompson. He is not arguing that Sitchin is calling these purported aliens literal gods; rather, he is pointing out how incongruous it is that these supposedly vastly more advanced aliens are using 1950s technology rather than something actually advanced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr Eppstein, I'm sorry if you think that I'm criticizing the critic, because it seems that you misunderstood me and what was written in this paragraph by the critic: old fashioned rockets or not, the critic is very circumstantial and writes with a a hint of mockery which should qualify as not admissible in a wikipedia article. (and this for the sake of the article and not Sitchin). Let me try to elaborate what I mean when I say circumstantial: this alien race, when it visited earth (according to Sitchin's books) was an advancing race, just like humans, and also just like humans back in the 60's when they were travelling in these same rockets depicted by the sumerians, they had these technologies and MAYBE didn't know yet of wormholes and what have you, thus at the time when they visited sumer and these depictions were created, they used these old fashioned rockets. (which are very capable of inter-planetary travel just like the ones used in the moon missions...) Anyhow, this is such a wide topic open for discussion, which is, now, besides the point. The point resides in the fact that this critic seemed to be mocking Sitchin and attributing things (like the calling of the Annunaki Gods by Sitchin) wrongfully, and regardless to whether he (the critic) was correct (might very well be) or not, in my opinion, the mockery is unacceptable and the metaphor is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MistaKay (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If the critics are mocking Sitchin, we should report that honestly, not try to cover it up or wail about leaving him alone. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't wail or say anything about leaving anyone alone. (where do you see me say or WAIL about something like that) I resent the comparison between leaving bitney alone comments and mine. You surely must be mistaking me with someone else, but now I just might wail about writers like you Mr. Eppstein, who clearly has a beef to settle but firstly not with me, secondly not on this forum. I don't care about you or Sitchin, I care about the article. Please don't address me anymore or say anything inaccurate about me or my comments anymore... On the other hand, to the wikipedia editors of this article, I honestly think that there is mockery in this paragraph and should be taken off. MistaKay (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference #2, and #3 should be removed because they are flawed with numerous errors about what Sitchin wrote. If people are going to criticize Sitchin, they should at least get their facts right. And people will sit there and criticize Sitchin like he's some babbling idiot, but never back up their claims against Sitchin. It's so easy to criticize and make the old guy look like a fool…and never quote what the so-called scholars have to say. And I would find it hard to believe the scholars anyway. Most scholars are just like pathetic sheep following the heard, fearful of being ostracized by their peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by164.49.186.132 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to read WP:VERIFY. Wikipedia aims for verifiability, not truth. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an elitist, like all of you, but...

Its pretty plain to see, this wiki article is doomed. I, not being a major in anything related Sitchins works, found his books very interesting, and well explained, while I find this article to be the opposite.

Calling years of work and writing, "absurd" then not mentioning why, or your logic behind it at all, seems childish. Where Sitchin spent 10 chapters explaining why he felt a certain way, and even explaining the difference between his logic, and conventional, widely excepted logic, this wiki merely states "He is wrong because other people said so".

This comment maybe just deleted and considered more dust on the internet. But again, as someone who has ACTUALLY read his books, this article just looks like someone trying to slam him down, and make him out to be a lunatic. And hey, maybe he is, but his whole article shouldn't just be written be people that think so, like it is now. Anyone who reads his books could come away thinking he might be onto something, and this article doesnt reflect that at all.

I could write a wiki about the Bible that is as damning towards it as this article is towards Sitchin, but no one would allow it to stay that way, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmargin (talk • contribs) 07:57, 12 July 2010

Thanks for the insults. Maybe you should read the article more carefully though, because the word 'absurd' wasn't written by a Wikipedia editor. We base our articles on what sources (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY say about an article, and if it is elitist for our articles where they cover subjects such as history to be biased towards academic sources, that's the way Wikipedia works and if you don't like it, you can start your own 'wiki'. So yes, if sources meeting our criteria say he's wrong, the article says he's wrong, that's the way it works, read WP:NPOV. I own five of his books by the way. What I found especially interesting was how he failed to meet the standards even Wikipedia has for referencing his works - he has huge bibliographies but doesn't actually cite them often. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I own five of his books by the way. What I found especially interesting was how he failed to meet the standards even Wikipedia has for referencing his works

Glad you own them. Who did I insult unless you consider yourself an elitist? A bulk of his books are him explaining the popular excepted translation of ancient writings, and then in turn, explaining why they could be read differently, sometimes without even changing the words, just putting them in a perspective more modern than the way archeaologists interpreted them 100 years ago. Yet this wiki covers none of that. Its a subject that spans multiple books, with a lot of explanations given, summed up here in about 3 paragraphs that touch on nothing more than his solar system creation theory, then straight into Nephilim being aliens, with the words "claim" after everything, making it seem as though he pulls this out of thin air, which, when you read his books, thin air does not seem to be where any of this information comes from. A complete, much lengthier write up would be required on this page to properly show these theories, but with so many people eager to delete information presented, and paste up the old waste of space again, is it worth my time to do so? Also, thanks for the advice on starting my own wiki, but I'll stick to trying to open minds on this one.Shmargin (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're trying to open minds, you've come to the wrong place. And if you want to base the article here on what Sitchin himself has written, rather than what others have written about him, then again you've come to the wrong place. So, to answer your question, is it worth your time to go against some of Wikipedia's central policies and guidelines: very probably not. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, amazing how wiki can be a place of good knowledge except when a few of wikis bodygaurds dont agree with something, my comments come to end, enjoy your fun article here about nothing. Shmargin (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is clearly NOT NEUTRAL, and yes, this article is NOT ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID ABOUT SITCHIN, but what Sitchin has written, so David, you're definitely wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.179.100 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles should in fact be based on what reliable (see WP:RS and use that definition) third party sources say about a subject. So yes, it's meant to be, like all our articles about what people have said about Sitchin. That's the way Wikipedia works, and if you are unhappy with that there are other places where you can work. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not absurd

From the article:

"Sitchin claims that "from an equal start, the Nefilim evolved on Nibiru 45 million years ahead of comparable development on Earth with its decidedly more favorable environment." Such an outcome is unlikely, to say the least, since Nibiru would spend over 99% of its time beyond Pluto. Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space."

If a planet like Nibiru is larger than the Earth, it must have more internal heat - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_heat and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal and a thicker atmosphere. If the composition and thickness of the atmosphere allows it, it will trap enough energy that is vented through the crust. Clouds are perfect blankets at night, as everyone has experienced. And what problem of darkness in deep space are we talking about? Life can evolve in total darkness.

So I think this piece should be adjusted the improve the tone, as this should not be impossible, just not very likely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Verwaijen (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC) — Alex Verwaijen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1. it's a quote. It can't be changed. 2. As an explanation for the presence of sentient life on the planet's surface, it is most certainly absurd. It's one thing to stay warm, but as the quote says, you still need light for photosynthesis, and there isn't any light where Nibiru is, still less under a thick atmosphere. Serendi^podous 14:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Internal heat with a thick atmosphere does not solve the problem of habitability on Nibiru (which spends 99+ per cent of its time beyond the orbit of Pluto) such that intelligent, humanoid life would develop there sooner than similar life developed on Earth which is the only planet in the solar system that is in the habitable zone. This is because any solid crust would effectively trap the internal heat making its presence effectively unfelt because heat transfer through rock by conduction is very slow. This is shown by the fact that after a lava flow from a volcano solidifies, after two weeks the new crust is about one foot thick and one is able to walk bare foot on this recently solidified lava. And, sure, primitive life can arise in extreme environments that are hot or cold and even dark, but this is a far cry from advanced fauna who would be able to sexually mate with terrestrial hominids as Sitchin posits. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Cult of Alien Gods

I just discovered a 2005 book by Jason Colavito, The Cult of Alien Gods, which promises to provide more analysis of Sitchin's methodology if the webpage "Zecharia Sitchin's World" is a reliable guide. Several local libraries hold this book, which I hope to inspect in the coming week. Phaedrus7 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Editors of the Sitchin entry and disgruntled Sitchin fans might be interested to learn that the Sep/Oct issue of Atlantis Rising #83 just out on the newsstands contains a short article by Sitchin, "Ancient Giants & Alien DNA...Or Not?", accompanied by a sidebar "Critics Remain Unconvinced" which is mostly a reprint of a major excerpt from the Wikipedia entry. There is no rebuttal/reply from Sitchin. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

removal of WP:POV statments and discussion of citations

User:Phaedrus7 reverted a WP:POV statement that had been removed Here and called it vandalism. I am the editor that removed the statement. It was not vandalsim and was a possible mistake, but under review, I feel that it still should not be there.

• The supposed "quote" is not indicated in the article that it is a quote and appears to be a WP:POV entry from an editor
• The citation (#11) that is associated to the "quote" is not a link but associated to page in a magazine or periodical. When the magazine/periodical/book is researched has not WP:RS that says it even exists.
• Going to the article C. Leroy Ellenberger who supposedly wrote the quote for "Marduk Unmasked. Frontiers of Science, May–June, pp. 3-4" the only indication of association leads to Kronos: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Synthesis which has no mention or indication of this citation etc.

In conclusion, The statment has no WP:RS and even as a "quote" is not encyclopedic and fails WP:POV Pmedema (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

By changing someone's direct quote, it is you who is introducing falsehoods into the article, by stating that the author of that quote said something other than what they really said. Please desist. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please show me the Proof of said published statment that follows WP:RS. An ISBN would be nice... just show me that it exists in any way...

Please have some tea and please don't WP:ABF. Pmedema (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The authenticity of the periodical Frontiers of Science has been challenged. WorldCat database lists the title with ISSN 0730-3343, published by Center for UFO Studies in Washington, D.C. from 1980 to 1982. It succeeded the title Second Look. When it ceased publication its offices were in Baltimore, Maryland. In 1982 it published a special issue on Velikovsky. It is held by 17 libraries in the United States. Phaedrus7 (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to my previous remarks, it should be noted that the May-June 1981 Frontiers of Science, in addition to Ellenberger's critique, also published a review of Sitchin's The Twelfth Planet by Ivan Bachur, then a technical writer in Detroit, Michigan, on pp. 37, 42, 44, and an article "Astronauts of the Twelfth Planet" by Sitchin, pp. 30-31. Sitchin's then-new book The Stairway to Heaven was offered by the magazine's Readers Service feature on the inside rear cover. In his review, Bachur notes: "Sitchin's theory is worked out to the smallest detail, with answers for every question. But are they plausible answers? He claims they agree with all the facts we presently possess about our solar system. In reality, Sitchin has either ignored or misrepresented these facts in his theory. . . . Sitchin has misinterpreted the sun's role in creating and sustaining life. He claims life could survive on Marduk [i.e., the Babylonian name for the Sumerian Nibiru] without the sun, supported by Marduk's own internal heat. But it is the sun's light, not its heat, which makes possible such biological processes as photosynthesis" (p. 42). "He says that Marduk's 'ancient astronauts' returned to earth and taught the Enuma Elish to the Sumerians, around 3,800 B.C. He does not mention that most historians believe the Enuma Elish is a Babylonian, not a Sumerian, myth. Professsor Samuel Noah Kramer, whom Sitchin calls 'one of the great Sumerologists of our time' and cites as one of his principal sources, is convinced the Enuma Elish was written in Babylonia around 2,000 B.C. Sitchin does say that the Babylonian text of the myth is only a 'masterful forgery' of a lost Sumerian original, but he offers no evidence to support this claim. Even accepting Sitchin's date would create problems. If Marduk last approached the earth in 3,800 B.C., it should have returned 3,600 years later, in 200 B.C. Yet history records no such appearance" (p. 44).

• Although Frontiers of Science may be considered an obscure publication today, in its time it marshalled the cooperation of an impressive list of spokesmen from the fields of its interests. The Board of Advisors listed in the March-April 1982 Velikovsky-themed issue included John Carlson, Director The Center for Archaeoastronomy, University of Maryland; Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Director Center for UFO Studies; Dr. Edwin C. Krupp, Director The Griffith Observatory; Dr. Bruce Maccabee, Director Fund for UFO Research; James Oberg; Robert Sheaffer; Ronald Story; John White, author of Pole Shift; and Colin Wilson. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all the information, but in fact, I'm not for or against Sitchen or... would "his followers" be appropriate?... think/believe. I'm sort of satisfied regarding the citation although it is still obscure, I have at least been shown that the periodical exists. Now... it would be very nice if the article indicated that the statment is a direct quote and not a WP:POV opinion of an editor. Pmedema (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

How do we know the subject statement is a direct quote? Because it is displayed between opening and closing quotation marks. OK? Phaedrus7 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling himself absurd?

Sitchin claims that "from an equal start, the Nefilim evolved on Nibiru 45 million years ahead of comparable development on Earth with its decidedly more favorable environment. Such an outcome is unlikely, to say the least, since Nibiru would spend over 99% of its time beyond Pluto. Sitchin's explanation that heat from radioactive decay and a thick atmosphere keep Nibiru warm is absurd and does not address the problem of darkness in deep space. Also unexplained is how the Nefilim, who evolved long after Nibiru arrived, knew what happened when Nibiru first entered the solar system."[11]

Just that there are a few problems here, I think the end quote on Sitchen's saying was left out, then either there is another direct quote from the article passed off as paraphrasing, or whomever added this seemed to judge the arguments at hand in a bad way. Either way, hopefully someone with the source can fix this, or just replace it with a different source, because its not clear who is saying what, or what the arguments are, or if some editor has decided Hitchen's ideas are absurd on their own

--70.94.118.125 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm was looking through the archive of this page and found some guy saying this

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

I'd bet dollars to donuts he wrote that horrible paragraph

--70.94.118.125 (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, given that that parargraph is a quote from a book written in 1981, the chances of his ahving written it are slim. However, I agree that the quote was badly framed. Fixed. Serendi^podous 10:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Size matters

The introductory text on Sitchin is much shorter than the text that criticises him. What is going on? Give the guy a proper elaboration of his stories and discuss that later in the article. Is it fair to attack on something that may be essential to your way of thinking, but which may in fact be just a side issue from Sitchin's point of view? Is this article a Sitchin-rebuttal or a fair and neutral overview oh 'his' work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichnaton (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Neutral point of view (NPOV) may not be what you mean by 'neutral'. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd that no one's noticed he's dead

As far as I can tell, there are no reliable sources mentioning his death. Surely he was notable enough to get an obit in the mainstream press? Even the woo woo press has barely seen fit to acknowlege his death. I may not have agreed with with his ideas but I wouldn't want him to be a victim of "death by Wikipedia".Serendi^podous 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

criticism

I have reviewed the discussions on the validity or assertations of the author. I find the whole emotionally charged issued, done so under the guise of intellectualism or scientific rationale as tritefully boring.

While, the current scientific based criticism are welcomed; they do not portend any understanding of the context of the authors work. We have limited astronomical knowledge; and scarely can track, all the asteroids entering into relative close proximity to our own planet. But, is the existence of a rouque planet so crucial to his basic premise? Or is the fact of a mining of gold to save some distant planet atmosphere so important? What I find staggering and incredible is the belief in alien external correction of life about earth. Equally mind blowing is the introduction of alient DNA so as to create hybrid capable of being controlled and work. Is so much of a problem, to accept the premise expressing DNA from aliens was introduced into the human gene pool? If the myth is truly factual; then even so, we may not fully understand because modern academic perspectives are often based on self-fulfilling agendas designed to glean more grants and funding. In my opinion, we need to carefully study the documents and remain open to the myth. One does not need to believe in the alien hypothesis to gain value from Stitchen. Incredibly, we are often way too protective of comfortable theories which tend to support egocentric views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.201.51 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely no credence can be placed in the foregoing apologia from 98.173.201.51 to Sitchin's alien visitation fantasy because, as competent scholars in Assyriology and related disciplines have explained many times, Sitchin does not so much translate his texts but, rather, interprets them to say precisely what his pre-conceived notions dictate, making it all up as he goes along. Furthermore, the same astronomical surveys that have discovered literally thousands of near-earth asteroids would just as easily discovered Sitchin's Nibiru, which has not happened. Phaedrus7 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Improper sources and pejorative adjectives and associations

I am not defending Sitchin's idea's, but the treatment of him in this article in certain sections is pathetic.

1) It say's "Sitchin's speculations have been ridiculed by professional scientists, historians, and archeologists...". First of all "ridiculed" is not an appropriate statement of fact and is the opinion of the source author. "Rejected by", "not accepted by", "dismissed by" are appropriate terms, but "ridiculed" is offensive. Ridiculed:"Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing". Furthermore, the reference given is a blog from something called the "Skeptic's Dictionary" which is a collated website of blogs by an author specifically devoted to debunkery and the mockery of any and all topics the author cares to write about. This is not acceptable reference of fact under any circumstance and if it were a reference it could only used be to cite the particular author's opinion, which in this case is not qualified. The inclusion of the "ridiculed" statement prominently displayed in the opening section is clearly by design to promote a particular POV instead of being an objective contribution.

2) Any connection between Sitchin and the Raelian Religion is pure conjecture and is only made in the context that they apparently both believe that aliens came here and genetically engineered man despite the fact that otherwise there is no connection. Christians believe that a God from space came to earth and created man too so I guess Christianity is based on Sitchin's work as well? This is obviously placed in the leading paragraph of the "Influence" section for no other reason than to imply that the sum total, or at least main contribution, of Sitchin's influence is that of fueling some cult religion just about any one would agree is pure nonsense which in reality is nothing more than a generic association based on relative ideas. Regardless, the author of the source blog also presents this in passing and not a statement of fact, but rather, again, of general association though it is presented as the opposite in the edit. You people can read can't you? Go here [1] and tell me where there is any mention of Sitchin and/or his theories. To put this at the forefront, let alone include it at all, especially in light of purposefully omitting any other more relevant material regarding Sitchin's "Influence" is obviously nothing more than a shameful attempt to purposefully demean and discredit Sitchin. I mean really-30yrs and 14 books and all you can say about his influence is some complete nonsense about a supposed connection to this Raelian thing? Shameful. The other lines don't even have sources and are even more obscure than this "Raelian" religion. The "Influence" section has purposefully omitted any relevant information about Sitchin and instead highlights indirect fringe of the fringe associations with either dubious or no sources at all.

I have corrected both of these glaring errors and replaced it with appropriate material. There is no honest or competent editor who can look at what was written before and say it was objective in any way let alone accurate and sourced appropriately. What I have corrected these to are the facts.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rael's link to Sitchin is easily sourced to reliable sources, it took seconds for me to find them - you could have if you looked. Thus it is hardly a 'glaring error'. I'll add them later today. The Skeptics Dictionary is not a blog and you should know that. It's a website based on a book published by John Wiley & Sons. [sorry, it's a website turned into a book] It can be used as a source but should probably, as we often do, be attributed in the article - which you should have done since you more or less admit it could be used. I have no idea why you think just because something isn't in another article it shouldn't be here, but if it will make you feel better I'll try to add it where it belongs, History of Raëlism. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Found a recent WP:RS That could be used in the article Here - 216.191.219.194 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry; but there is no way this unsourced, web-based article by "Taliesin Verity" can be considered WP:RS. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• • No, Doug, what you find "in seconds" are general associations based on the shared premise of ancient astronauts which are not limited to just Sitchin, but also include the likes of Von Daniken and science fiction writers of the 1950's. The article here as it was written, despite the dubious source, was constructed in such a way to imply if not state by omission of facts that Sitchin alone was directly responsible for influencing the ideas of Raelism, which is not true. And also, given it was the leading paragraph of the "Influence" section with little to no other supporting material about his influence on the genre, gave the clear impression that such a dubious distinction was Sithin's most notable claim to fame solely designed by association to further discredit his ideas.

Regardless, the Raelien cult was established in 1974, 2 years before the 12th Planet was even published, with it's beliefs in spaceships, Elohim, and whatnot coming to Earth from another planet firmly established. So how is it now that Sitchin is specifically responsible for influencing this cult when he actually came later? And if Sitchin has directly influenced Raelism upon the later reading of his work, what specific ideas did they adopt from it if any? And these sources that you now site, not found "in seconds", in which reproductions of these statements are not found at all as far as I can find, can you give at least here the quotes that you are basing your citation on? Do they actually say-"Sitchin is responsible for influencing Raelism and this is why" or is it more likely all they do is mention the two in passing as a group with others of the genre, along with Von Daniken and the like?

• • The Skeptic's Dictionary is a website based on a 1994 book of the same ilk that is continually updated with single entry blogs, or "articles" if you prefer, specifically devoted to debunking various alternative subjects. It is by it's very nature not a source of objective scientific inquiry and though it may provide verifiable facts, it's clearly pejorative sarcastic and disdainful delivery, often lacking citations to support the author's conclusions, make this a clearly biased source inadmissible beyond the caveat of "Author so and so claims...". A Creationists website, for example, might give verifiable facts intermingled with the pejorative and biased opinions of it's authors, but such a source who's stated purpose is to promote a particular biased point of view would not be considered a credible source for an article about say, evolution.

The point of all this is that Sitchin is not a baby killer and is not responsible for the holocaust. He is a writer who has sold millions of books all over the world and this article should be about him and by association his theories which define him as a public figure, and in fairness needs to highlight both the good and the bad. As it is now it is nothing more than a slugfest expose' of debunker's loathing for him and his ideas. What militant debunkers such as yourself have attempted to do with this Sitchin article (among others) is paint the most unflattering picture as possible specifically designing the content to demean and discredit both the man and his ideas. What is not accomplished by substituting pejorative and derogatory words like "ridiculed" instead of the appropriate "not accepted by" and the like and the inappropriate weight given to criticisms, is the clear omission of anything remotely positive about his existence and writings.

O.J. Simpson murdered 2 innocent people and yet compare his Wiki article here [[2]] to Sitchin's. Despite Simpson's grisly crimes, which apparently given his treatment in this article, Sitchin's theories about ancient aliens are even more grievous by comparison, we do not (and should not) omit the positive aspects of O.J.'s life such as his football and acting career for the simple reason it is about the man and his life and how this information is relevant to popular culture. This is not included to "lionize" Simpson or by contrast diminish the impact of his crimes, but unless the article is solely about his crimes, in fairness to the subject the more positive elements of his life and career should be included and presented objectively. This is not an article about Sitchin's theories, it is an article about Zecharia Sitchin. And as point of fact his books have sold millions of copies worldwide affording his work a great influence on the subject of ancient astronauts and alternative history. Sitchin has also been featured prominently on numerous TV programs and publications worldwide as well as spawning a whole generation of copy cat writers who plagiarize, errr, "draw" from his work. I am not defending Sitchin's ideas, but I am defending the man and he should be treated with, if not respect, at the very least objectivity which is supposedly the rule of Wikipedia.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Compare the treatment of Sitchin here with Von Daniken in his article [[3]]. There should be no difference in their relative scope and objectivity and should mirror one another in format and treatment, but for some reason Sitchin is gleefully trashed and diminished here while Von Daniken is treated like any other figure of note.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we trust Thanos who says The Skeptics Dictionary is a 1994 book or Amazon and Google books which both say 2003? There's also a major understanding by you of our policies - we don't have to prove a source is right, that's not the way Wikipedia works. And the lead should be a summary of the major bits of the article, and if other articles don't do that, that's a problem with those articles, not this one. What I found in seconds is verifiable, and that is what our policies demand. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And should we "trust" Doug Weller who says: "It's a website based on a book published by John Wiley & Sons" when in fact the exact opposite is true? I did and look where that got me. The website was created in 1994 and the book, a compilation of articles from the website, was released in 2003. Apparently my real mistake, beyond a typo in a vain attempt to make sense of your error, was actually believing what you said was correct in the first place. My bad. But instead of clarifying you take a pot shot at me personally and side step the rest. AND WHO IS THIS "OUR"? Are you saying you are part of this "our" and I am not? If you truly think that your contributions here represent some kind of "ownership" of Wiki where others who do not share your POV do not, I suggest it is time to tear down those life size Michael Shermer posters and move out of Mom's basement.

Regardless, as psuedo-skeptics will do often do, you try and steer the argument against the person making the opposing view instead of directly addressing the issues. Nothing I said had anything to do about proving a source is right, it had to do with the credibility of the source given it's bias and the way the information was presented in this article. Oh, so now those other articles are wrong? I was waiting for that one. No, Doug, it appears that what you found in seconds was a bibliography from another article that probably at best says I suggest it does if at all. I have caught you doing this several times before. Otherwise, produce it here for us to verify.

And how is it objective to include only the negative aspects of these "major bits" and none of the positive aspects which is what the gaggle of psuedo-skeptics have attempted do do here? Anything deemed "positive" towards Sitchin is immediately removed as "irrelevant" or an attempt to "lionize" Sitchin. The psuedo-skeptic editors here have made a concerted effort to make sure only negatives are allowed. Case in point:some jackass keeps removing the paragraphs about Sitchin's publishing and media influence.Thanos5150 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy about having positive stuff about his influence and numbers of books, etc in the article and haven't removed any of it. The point about The Skeptics Dictionary is website or not, it's a published book, not a blog. Calling a respected historian an "author specializing in debunking what he claims to be pseudo-history" is probably a violation of our BLP policy, especially when your source doesn't say that. As for finding a bibliography, I did nothing of the sort. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of summary of criticism from lead section

Thanos5150 (talk · contribs) insists on removing any criticism of Zecharia Sitchin from the lead section, and burying it farther down in the article. I see this as a violation of both WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD. I've opened a thread about this on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard but I think here is a better place to actually carry out the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography article and the lead section is about Sitchin, not his ideas and any such criticisms of his ideas need to be placed in their relevant section. In a biography article what is relevant to the lead are any notable detractions about the PERSON. Is this article titled "Zecharia's Sitchin's Theories"? No, you psuedo-skeptics need to stop bastardized this article. I am not "burying" anything, but have moved this MOS:LEAD to it's pertinent section, Criticism. Or, if you can't wait that long to bash Sitchin you could put it in the Ideas and works section. Did you bother to compare to the Von Daniken article? No?Thanos5150 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war much? I've commented about the von Daniken article. Did you bother to compare it to the Velikovsky article? "In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community" is in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Only when dealing with militant psuedo-skeptics such as yourself. It's hard to say Velikovsky's article actually "leads" with this statement because it follows a lengthy paragraph of his works and also the qualifying lead is tempered with objectivity. Sitchin's on the other hand, is denied this, by editors like you, who have purposely diminished Sitchin lead's to barely 3 sentences before we are whacked on the head with the customary "Sitchin sucks". But thanks for pointing Velikovsky's article out because this treament here is much more appropriate for the Sitchin article: "In general, Velikovsky's theories have been vigorously rejected or ignored by the academic community.[4] Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia.[5][6][7][8] The controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair".

I'd dispute the characterization of this article as solely biographical, in any case. Most of the article is in fact about his works and ideas rather than the trivia of his life, as is typical for articles about people known for their ideas. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a biography article actually, but obviously his work is what defines him as a public figure so in essence his body of work and influence work IS his relevant biographical information which this articles omits any information other than "Sitchin sucks" and this is why. Any positive element, or at least anything that does not purposefully disparage Sitchin, has not been allowed in this article. Explain why? The point is that anything implying a positive element to Sitchin's work, i.e. by default Sitchin himself, has been purposely eliminated from not only the lead, but the rest of the article as well, making the article clearly unbalanced towards the negative. Limiting the lead to barely 3 sentences prior to the "Sitchin sucks" qualification is nota objective and not a good article for anyone. Can you honestly disagree with this statement? When looking at articles of various controversial figures such as a Velikovsky or Von Daniken, regardless of the semantics of what phrase is put where, it is obvious Sitchin's article is clearly unbalanced towards the negative.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanos knows that if he's seen the von Daniken article. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The only reason Sitchin is notable is because of his ancient astronaut ideas, and the article rightly focuses on that. Where a figure is controversial then it is perfectly correct to summarise the controversy they are known for in the lede. Wikipedia isn't here to 'bash' Sitchin, just to report what reliable sources say about him. If the vast majority of reliable sources we can find say "the guy was a pseudohistorian" then that is what the article is going to say. If you want the article to say something else then just do the research to provide sources that say other things. Oh and the Von Dankien article doesn't set precedent for anything, it isn't that good to start with and besides, wp:ose isn't a good line of reasoning. Davémon (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but the only point of all this is that any and all positive aspects of his work/life have been purposefully eliminated from the article and any attempt to say anything that does not purposefully disparage Sitchin is quickly removed. Zecharia Sitchin has written over a dozen books and sold millions of copies worldwide, but this is somehow "irrelevant" to an article about a guy named Zecharia Sitchin who wrote over a dozen books and has sold millions of copies worldwide? Does this not seem rather stupid to you?Thanos5150 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's in the lead, right? The first para says "Sitchin's books have sold millions of copies worldwide and have been translated into more than 20 languages", the 2nd para summarises the criticism. The Influence section should stay also. I hope that satisfies you and you won't edit war when you come off your block. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It was only put there in the lead as a one line sentence to justify the removal of any more expansive material in the influence section. Is it a fair representation to limit his popularity or influence to this one line? I think that the Velikovsky lead is an example of a more objective treatment and should be an accepted model for Sitchin.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanos's additions to the influence section are not appropriate for inclusion. The only factual information of any relevance was the publication figures, which I moved to the lead. The rest reads like a blurb on the back of a book and really has no informational purpose; the fact that Zecharia Sitchin's work has been mentioned on the History Channel is not relevant to either side of the argument; the History Channel has proven itself to be a fountain of pseudoscientific drivel. Serendi^podous 06:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Serendipitous: Your clear disdain for Sitchin is well documented in your edit's and the history of your discussion comments. This "edit war", was actually instigated by you, yet if it means that we can now look at this article more objectively, I am more than happy to take the blame. In the future, if you disagree with material, is not appropriate to move to discussion before continually chopping it out? That seems to be what I keep hearing yet apparently this only applies to anything I edit. Regardless, saying "Zecharia Sitchin's work has been mentioned on the History Channel is not relevant to either side of the argument" clearly underscores your lack of understanding of what the "argument" actually is. It is not an argument for the validation of Sitchin's ideas, it is an argument whether or not this article meets any reasonable criteria for fairness and objectivity for the subject which it clearly does not. Looking at the discussion pages this seems to be a long running problem here which none of the administrators so eager to swoop down on any who try to balance it are willing to make the effort, regardless of their POV, to do their job and have continued to allow this article to be bastardized. Hopefully we have turned a corner on this.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to judge the scientific accuracy of the History Channel; regardless, as a major US cable tv channel it obviously lends some notability to the subject. It is for almost the same reason that I find Thanos' arguments about the Skeptics' Dictionary unconvincing: regardless of where its source material came from, it was published as a proper book. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you misunderstand my arguments as actually I am making the same case for the History Channel as I am the Skeptic's dictionary. The History Channel in this case as it is used here is acceptable because it IS the source of the TV series that Sitchin has been featured. The 12th Planet is also published as a "proper book", but obviously because it is a biased source of information it cannot be used as a source other than to cite the author's opinion.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. So long as we aren't using the History Channel as a reliable source to show the factual accuracy of anything we can mention it. It's the sort of thing you'd expect to find in a biography, even if it might read like a blurb. And as the lead is a summary of the article and as the cites should be in the main body of the article, we need that there in order to have the summary in the lead. And it is all part of the evidence of his notability (as are the criticisms obviously). Dougweller (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Doug. If I am writing a biography article about say, Jerry Sienfeld, to reference NBC in relation to his involvement in the Seinfeld TV show would be appropriate because it is the source of the show. The History Channel's only "factual" relevance is that is the primary source of the TV show itself, which is the issue and not what the TV show says beyond the fact Sitchin's ideas are featured in it.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So should this article repeat the same sentence twice? And should we leave the wording to suggest that serious documentary makers have suggested that Sitchin's ideas have merit? Serendi^podous 17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it may need tweaking. I'm not terribly bothered by the repetition but I'm sure we can fix that. I don't see any suggestion that serious documentary makers have taken his ideas seriously - but it would be nice to be able to source the sentence, maybe Thanos will do that? And how many documentaries have there been? Dougweller (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

If I understood you correctly in another edit, you agreed with the idea that the one line is a summary in the lead of his influence, just as is the criticism, both which we now finally seem to agree are appropriate for the lead. Serendipitous's issue is that he believes that the one line sentence needs to eliminate the other or be removed entirely if it is said elsewhere. The reason it is repetitive is because it was copy and pasted by Serendipitous as a basis to remove Influence paragraph. It could be said differently, but the point is that something to that effect needs to be addressed in the lead. If you read what was written, it does say documentaries both "pro and con", so it clearly fair to the issue. I wrote this as a test edit so it is lacking in it's scope, but I will be happy to expand on it and provide more detailed source material.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The part about selling lots of books, etc. can be sourced to the New York Times article. I don't think the mention of his inclusion on a History Channel program infers that his ideas have merit. The only problem I can see is that the "Influence" section reads more like a promotional resume than a summary of his influence on the culture as expressed by reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It does a bit, but no where near as much as on some novelists' articles. Hopefully we can over time find more on his actual influence (although I guess book sales and documentaries are part of his influence, if he hadn't influenced anyone would he have those? Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a little harsh to characterize it as a "promotional resume" and agreeing with DW it is little different than others of the same.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Critique of a section style isn't harsh, it's what Talk pages are all about. My impression is that it's a bit choppy, being basically a list of book sales, radio program guest spots, TV appearances, etc. strung together under the heading of "Influence". Isn't there a reliable source that makes this synthesis for us (rather than us trying to WP:SYNTH it ourselves?) - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying the act of critiquing a section is harsh, obviously or we wouldn't be here right now, I only said it was harsh to characterize it as a "promotional resume'. But like I said, it was a test edit to introduce the material. No sense in making a long edit that will get chopped out 2 seconds after it's entered. I think we all agree it does need to be fleshed out, objectively, and it will be. I have a reference, from a critic no less, than actually gives a pretty thorough and accurate treatment of Sitchin's influence. I need to track it down, but I believe it will cover a lot of ground.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I do understand it's tough to find disinterested commentary by reliable sources regarding Sitchin's "influence". I was about to lend a hand converting this quote into summary prose style when I noted it was extracted from the critical context its author intended for it, i.e. that Sitchin himself and his fans encourage a misinformed perception that he holds academic linguistic expertise and authority. I could see it being woven into other reliably sourced material regarding Sitchin's influence, but as a 'stand alone' it seems a bit disingenuous. That said, I'd be willing to help with finessing the prose for this section provided you can find more suitable material. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly a "taint" to it, but given the volatility of some editors it seemed the only way get the process started without getting into some stupid edit war. Baby steps. My time is getting limited, more so from having to defend everything down to the word, so it would be really great if you can help fixing it up. Sitchin is often quoted/sourced and his ideas and translations repeated as fact in many genres. Sitchin has also had a huge influence in foreign countries which his ideas have been well received. Maybe you can help fixing the criticism as well for reasons stated above. Regardless, I was thinking that the use of the term "Sitchinite" to describe his followers would be noteworthy. And also something missing here is the Great Pyramid forgery controversy which over the years has taken on a life of it's own and become a bit of an urban legend. People who have no idea who Sitchin is have probably heard about the forgery claims. And no, I am not advocating his forgery claims, but is something of noteThanos5150 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, one solution might be to dump the quote and rename the section "Popularity". That would free us from having to reliably source and construct a case for Sitchin's "influence". Mention of number of books sold and translated is certainly appropriate to "popularity". And stylistic choppiness can be avoided by weaving together the other elements using sentences like "Sitchin's theories have been featured in television programs such as History Channel's Ancient Aliens the Series and he was a frequent guest on Coast To Coast AM with George Noory....". Just a thought. (Re: "Sichinites", foreign influence, etc. as I'm not familiar with it, you'll have to point out some reliable sources to draw from on that.) - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The Von Daniken article uses popularity instead as well. That all sounds good. There are other interesting things to be added, just need some time. If you do a Google search of "Sitchinite" you will find it repeated ad nauseam in all realms his ideas are mentioned. Pages of hits. His critics refer to his fans this way as well. I'm not sure what the proper source would be for something like that, but you can see it widely used term to describe "one who believes in Sitchin's ideas". I will look into the foreign influence. His books are perennial best sellers and by association Von Daniken still sells out arenas and is still hugely popular. Sitchin seems to be part of that. This may be a dead end source wise if only because the sources might be foreign themselves, but just a thought. If there is something there exceptional that should be noted it would be appropriate, but otherwise it is probably understood. Unless some one didn't tell us, we would have never known how popular David Hasselhoff is in Germany.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Imagine my embarrassment when I discovered I'd been spelling Sitchin's name wrong here. OK, a search on "Sitchinites" returned many hits but none (that I could see) that constituted reliable sources. They all seems to be forum posts, blogs, UFO and Fortean enthusiast sites. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are trying to divorce Michael Heiser's remark about the perception of Sitchin's "academic authority" from his condemnation of that perception, however if it becomes a sticking point we'll just have to leave the quote out. You did see my explanation of why I feel the quote is taken out of context above, yes? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the point trying to be made, and maybe I'm not seeing it, but I don't see where the "divorce" is occurring from his condemnation because it has to do with the popularity of Sitchin. What Heiser is saying is that because Sitchin and his followers think "A" the resulting perception is "B", which is absolutely true. Heiser is making a valid point here that shouldn't be omitted because, right or wrong, this is what separates Sitchin in people's mind from others of the genre and is the crux of what makes him notable. This is why I originally put the whole quote in there to give context to Heiser's "condemnation" which before you termed as "disingenuous". I would hope that editors could refrain from swooping in and adding edits like "veneer" or "that "academic authority" conferred on Sitchin by himself and his readers is misplaced". One is an alteration of someone's verbatim quote and the other is putting words in their mouth by way of summary. I think the best course of action here is to leave in the original quote as I had it. The context was pretty clear to anyone who read it and still gets the point across of why Sitchin is notable.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The writer does make the point you expressed, but then goes on to say "...That may sound silly, but tens of millions of readers take it seriously. But should they?". In other words, Heiser thinks the perception of Sitchin as having scholarly authority is silly and misinformed. If you'd prefer, we can include Heisder's entire quote in context in the Criticism section, as it's more appropriate there than in a section dealing with his popularity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to confuse anyone, but his "scholarly" perception actually has a lot to do with his popularity if not being a direct result thereof. Ultimately, this is why he is so popular. So how do we say this in a non pejorative way as it pertains to his popularity without vilifying or endorsing it? Heiser's quote I think is pretty tame, but I see what you are saying about it being in the criticisms section. If Sitchin's work was such total crap as to be lacking of any "scholarship" then why are "scholars" and "scientists" required to refute it? Why not monkeys? Thanos5150 (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Heiser's quote can be leveraged to make the singular point you want it to make without bringing the weight of its entire context along for the ride. Usually in articles about fringe proponents, we have multiple sources of third party commentary from which to construct the kind of analysis you're suggesting. Maybe you can locate some wider sources for this? - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a tough one. How do you say something that is common knowledge, but there is no neutral source material that says it? Or in the case of "Sitchinite", this is obviously a commonly used term, but is there a source that defines it so it can be used as reference? I don't know. In researching this I have found no neutrality about Sitchin's work-critics/debunkers despise it while adherents/believers follow it mostly without question. Personally, I think both are extreme, but therein lies the problem. It might be time better spent at this point leaving that section as it is for now and moving on. Compared to what it was I would say it has been improved immensely, so over time hopefully it will continue to evolve in an objective way.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the criticisms section. I'm thinking about taking a stab at it here soon, but to do it in such a way that won't make people's heads explode from multiple spontaneous aneurysms will be a challenge. I have that effect on people in general.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Re your question about how to include content about "Sitchinites": news articles or feature stories qualify as reliable sources, as do books that are reasonably objective and independent. Needless to say, a source promoting the idea that we're all descended from aliens or that the truth about various mysterious mysteries is being suppressed by a conspiracy isn't an objective or independent source (other than for claims about itself). More specific details are found at WP:RS. Re the criticism section, it can use improvement, however I'm not sure exactly what you're after. A neutral point of view does not mean we "balance" articles about fringe topics 50/50 pro and con, or give "equal validity" to both mainstream and fringe views. WP:FRINGE requires us to present the majority view as the most prominent, make clear how the fringe view differs from the status quo, and weight the article accordingly. That doesn't mean we can't describe the fringe view fully and in detail. The Velikovsky article is a good example of how to carefully combine primary and secondary sources to describe a largely marginalized view. Apologies in case you know all this, but since I see you're having problems with WP policies, I thought I'd take a chance on trying to explain some of them for you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Thanos is a big dumb animal. WP policies only confuse Thanos. And thanks for taking my back on Hapgood only AFTER I get the shaft. I think I've made my point about the criticism section pretty clear so I see no point in repeating myself. It needs to be better written and balanced as in the "weight of a thing" as a complete article, not just "pros and cons". All I can say to you, again, is to compare the Sitchin article to any other controversial figure and correct accordingly.

To other editors, when changing things like this: "Roger W. Wescott, Prof. of Anthropology and Linguistics at Drew University, Madison, New Jersey, noted Sitchin's amateurishness" to this: "According to Prof. Roger Wescott" is considered "mangling" then clearly there is a problem here that has nothing to do with making a good article. Amateurish is an opinion of the author and should not be used as a statement of fact. I'm sure there is a WP policy for that.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Labelling critics

I note that two editors are adding labels to critics or their websites. Just in case we don't know that the authors criticising Sitchin are critics, Heiser is called a "self-proclaimed Sitchin critic". Fritze's book that is already in the reference is mentioned, which also seems redundant and may be again trying to maek a point. Heiser's website now has a pov label. Ellenberger is labelled with a source that is pretty obviously not a reliable source, yet another possible BLP violation. None of this seems necessary, some may be BLP or NPOV violations or even in the case of the 'polemical' label OR. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The point trying to be made is that not placing these critics in their proper context by omitting the real reasons why they are relevant, or motivated to critique Sitchin, is misleading, implying that these people are objective scholarly participants or worthy objectors themselves when most of them are not and a few are probably "kooks" in their own right.

Heiser is not "just" an "ancient languages scholar", he is a devout born again Christian mind you who's religious beliefs are central to his beliefs in UFO's. But more importantly, an otherwise nobody known only for his self-promoting Sitchin criticisms and a poorly received UFO fiction novel. How is this not relevant to his comments? How is the fact he runs a website called "sitchiniswrong.com" irrelevant in which all we are left with to identify this person is "ancient languages scholar"? Yes, he is, but he is also a kook in his own right with a clear bias that needs to be highlighted. So how do we do this properly Doug?

And as far as using the Sumerian Lexicon, given that it is common knowledge stated by Sitchin himself that these are only his translations, or interpretations, of these texts, is it any surprise we do not find Nebiru listed as the 12th planet or the Annunaki as it's inhabitant's as Heiser claims we should if Sitchin were not a "fraud"? This is a very dubious lead to this section without clarification.

Regardless of Fritze's academic credentials, his reference to Sitchin is from a general book of psuedohistorical debunkery which unstated doesn't give the context of his arguments.

C. Leroy Ellenberger's only claim to fame is being a one time assistant cum critic to Velikovsky in which his debunkery of the like is his only connection here. Otherwise he is nobody. Why is the reference not a reliable biographical source? No one, especially Ellenberger, is doubting that he was a former Velikovsky assistant now debunker, and the if you look at the home page it is a reference guide and not "pro Velikovsky". And before I used the Wiki entry as a source. Can you find an better source then instead of just removing it?

Peter James is a controversial figure himself and noted revisionist scholar whose theories, tainted by Velikovsky's, are "not generally accepted by mainstream historians or Egyptologists" as well. And Thompson is a "social philosopher" and "cultural critic"? Really? And from what I read of his related book, his criticisms of Sitchin are more on a general cultural level in which he doesn't delve to deep into verifying Sitchin's "scholarship", which is not his purpose, but actually his beef is with Sitchin's literalisms placed on myth.

So, what we have here is a parade of critics passed off as unbiased scholarly observers when in reality the opposite is true. Thompson and Fritze, though the context of Fritze's comments are from a book of general debunkery which should be noted for context, are probably the only two critics here that are worthy of inclusion without special qualification. As a whole, these people are mostly nobodies known publicly for little other than their active pursuit of the debunkery and/or are otherwise controversial figures themselves. For one, I think it is imperative to "call these people out" for what they really are without "violating any rules", but is it not possible to find any criticisms from credible scientists and scholars who have not made a side-living off of general debunkery?

And since we are here, there are 16 lines of just quotes alone from these critics and only 12 lines devoted to the whole of Sitchin's Ideas and Works. There are 33 total lines of text devoted to the Criticism section and only 29 devoted to the entire rest of the article and this is only after me adding 8 lines. It was even worse before. Is this not the definition of undue weight, or at the very least a really bad article? This argument has apparently been made before which of course most editors have been more than happy to overlook this problem.

This is not an ideological debate, but an editorial one so check yourself before you speak. While more can be added to sections other than criticisms to give it more balance, which not much else I think is required, beyond it's undue weight, the Criticism section reads rather poorly sounding more like a bloated incoherent diatribe from someone who is so pissed off they can't speak slow enough to make sense rather that a succinct outline of the criticisms. My suggestion is to summarize the quotes in general, especially by James and Thompson. These are way too long being more like "excerpts" than quotes. Also, is it possible to form a semblance of a coherent narrative out of it instead of a mishmash of quotes? Thanos5150 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

One edit I still haven't made is to move rearrange the criticisms section. I think we have to mention Heiser as he is a notable critic, but not at the top of the section. We don't have to label him a critic because it's clear he is, and as he has an article, we really don't have to say anything more about him. Fritze is a respectable historian and I strongly advise you not to suggest otherwise. If you think the weight is wrong after reading WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE you can always take that issue to the appropriate noticeboard, but I don't agree with you. The article needs to make it clear that his ideas are rejected by the mainstream and why. As for 'real reasons', that's clearly pov and OR, we don't know their 'real reasons' and it's not our business to interpret them. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot - I meant to say that rather than cut the criticism section, the article should say more about his ideas. Dougweller (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Heiser is a notable critic of Sitchin for no other reason than he has made himself so and by any standard is fringe himself. Not only does he himself require some sort of caveat, but also his opinions need to be clearly stated as such. Leaving him as just an "ancient language scholar" is not honest or fair not only to Sitchin, but also to someone like Fritze who has been lumped in the same category not to mention it puts Heiser in a much better light than is warranted. There is a bulk of criticism in the middle of the section that relies solely on the word of Heiser, but he is not mentioned by name as the source of these opinions. I'm sure there are many encyclopedic references of Sumerian/Babylonian cosmogony that will refer to how many planets the Sumerians thought there were and whatnot without having to rely on Heiser, especially without naming him in the text.

I have added the caveat "Ancient language scholar Michael S. Heiser has found what he claims to be many inaccuracies in Sitchin's translations and challenges interested parties to use this book to check their validity". Adding "what he claims" is appropriate. Someone keeps reverting it back and I have directed them here for discussion.Thanos5150 (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not questioned Fritze's credentials and if you read I said: "Regardless of Fritze's academic credentials, his reference to Sitchin is from a general book of psuedohistorical debunkery which unstated doesn't give the context of his arguments" and "Thompson and Fritze, though the context of Fritze's comments are from a book of general debunkery which should be noted for context, are probably the only two critics here that are worthy of inclusion without special qualification". This means though we do not dispute his credentials; the point is it should be noted the context of his opinions which is a book devoted to debunking psuedohistorical themes that interest him.

When I say "real reasons" I meant the context of the statements. A book written specifically to debunk psuedohistorical topics without a full skeptical analysis of both sides of the argument is written from an already preordained outcome and evidence is collected and presented to support no other conclusion. This is context which should be noted. This is the same argument I make about the Skeptic's Dictionary. Neither are skeptical reviews of the debate, but a means to an end that has already been pre-determined by the authors bias. Sitchin's books are no different, so for me, I treat them both with equal skepticism.

I think it is a mater of simple word count that gives it undue weight. This is what I mean. Does that mean it needs to be shortened or other sections need to be lengthened, I don't know, but as a body of text it is clearly lopsided not to mention poorly conceived.Thanos5150 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As to my point about the context of Fritze's conclusions and why it is important to at least give the title of the book, go here [4]. A rather scathing review from Prof Douglas Allchin [5].Thanos5150 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the review says "Fritze's accounts are well documented and informative. But they rarely render the thinking of the historical actors effectively". His criticisms are philosophical, summed up by the statement "Fritze's historiography, however, seems to rest, in part, on a once popular but now outmoded epistemological model." Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Now, that's what I call shining a turd. But there are more nuts to be opened such as: "But the chronicling [by Frtize] is also ultimately short on explanation, analysis or fruitful historical understanding". And "Fritze renders pseudohistory as willful irrationality". "Advancing such false claims shows one to be (in Fritze's monikers): naive, biased, prejudiced, cynical, gullible, undiscriminating, unscrupulous, undisciplined, unorthodox, irrational, spiritual, flawed, fallacious, sensationalistic, amusing, quirky, eccentric, crazy, bizarre and embarassing, pathetic, off-beat, audacious (or 'almost unimaginably audacious'), outrageous, rhetorically clever, wild, extremist, over-eager, obsessive, manic, nefarious, reprehensible, and contemptible, not to mention communist and obfuscating". To Frtize "Pseudohistory is a 'charlatan's playground' of 'opportunists', targeting those all too 'willing to suspend disbelief' and slip into an 'abyss of fantasy'....It is 'corrosive of concepts of authority, objectivity and factual evidence' – an 'enemy unto Knowledge'. Fritze's book is a "a triumph for those who revel in others' errors and credulity". "Fritze epitomizes a tradition that equates the right method with the right answer. Pseudohistory or pseudoscience must be, accordingly, 'incorrect methodologically'...". "'Wrong' answers could never be reached for the 'right' reasons, nor 'right' answers for the 'wrong' reasons".Thanos5150 (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've removed 'Sitchin claims', 'Heiser claims', etc, replacing with more neutral wording. This mainly effects statements in the article about Sitchin. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch). Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern's criticism of Sitchin's ideas is not available in any published transcript of his June 25, 2008, appearance on George Noory's Coast to Coast a.m. radio program; but the show's audio can be listened to from the program's webpage after becoming a subscriber. It might also be helpful for the present discussion to familiarize one's self with the Talk: Zecharia Sitchin/Archive 1 and Talk: Zecharia Sitchin Archive 2 for the threads "Comments by Professor Piotr Michalowski" and "George Noory, Van Flandern & Sitchin", respectively. University of Michigan Assyriologist Michalowki's December 1995 criticisms of The 12th Planet posted to Usenet discussion groups are consistent with those made more recently by Michael Heiser, also a university-educated student of ancient Mesopotamian languages, unlike Sitchin who was self-taught--a frequent and reliable index to crank status. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

Particularly when there is disagreement we all need to avoid accidentally editing while logged out. Thanos5150, you've inadvertently done this again, editing as 76.115.37.36 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Answering Critics

It is well known that Sitchin never replied to criticism. Might any editor know of a RS that points this out, for inclusion in the entry? Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Slaves

I've fixed the section discussing the creation of Homo Sapiens, which had also left out the bit about the Anunnaki mutinying. Sitchin clearly refers to them as slaves. There's also a sentence in The Lost Realms, pp 255-256 which says "Enlil, discovering that Mankind had survived, was enraged at first. But then he relented. The Anunnaki, he realized, could still stay on Earth; but if they were to rebuild their centers and resume the production of gold, Man must be enabled to proliferate and prosper and be treated no longer as a slave but as a partner." Thanos should have known this. He's been blocked for a week for editwarring at Charles Hapgood, which is why you won't see him here for a while. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What DougWeller should have known is that in the context of the sentence as it was previously written, "slave creatures" was not appropriate. The correct term, as I corrected it to, was "primitive worker", which is reflected in your current edit so your point is what? Of course it is inferred they are "slaves", but Sitchin does not specifically refer to them as "slave" or "slave creature" in the 12th Planet, the seminal work which the paragraph is derived from, nor do the original texts, and out of the rest of the Earth Chronicles series, including Genesis Revisited, by my count he only uses the word "slave" instead of "primitive worker", "laborer" and the like one other time. So, by your logic, it is best to ignore the term used in context several dozen times in favor of the inferred term used only a few times.Thanos5150 (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Revisited has a whole chapter on "Adam: a slave made to order". And the whole point of their creation was to act as slaves after the Anunnaki mutinied, where Sitchin doesn't infer they are slaves, but says they were slaves.

In The Wars of Gods and Men" he writes:

The armed clash between Enlil and Enki that was soon to take place, however, was over these same slave laborers. . . .

The more the production of ores improved in the Abzu, the greater was the work load on the Anunnaki that had remained to operate the facilities in Mesopotamia. The climate was milder, rains were more plentiful, and the rivers of Mesopotamia were constantly overflowing. Increasingly the Mesopotamian Anunnaki "were digging the river/' raising dikes and deepening the canals. Soon they too began to clamor for the slave workers, the "creatures of bright countenance" but with thick black hair..."

In Breaking the Godspell: The Politics of Our Evolution By Neil Freer, Zecharia Sitchin - written basically by Freer but endorsed by Sitchin they are referred to as slaves.

Sure,he refers to them in a variety of ways, but the bottom line is that he says they were created as slaves and he makes that explicit. You appear to be trying to deny or even hide this, for reasons I can't fathom. Even his supporters accept this. Dougweller (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, which you ignore, obviously the inference is that they are slaves, no one is saying they weren't slaves, but in context as the sentence was written the term "primitive worker" was clearly more appropriate and not "slave creature". Yes, the chapter title "Slave Made to Order" was the other reference I was referring to which he does not use the term "slave" again in the whole chapter named "Slave Made to Order". Good for you you found 2 more uses of the word "slave", but what I can't fathom is why you want to deny or hide the more prevalent term "primitive worker", used dozens of times comparatively, when it is clearly the literal term of what they created. I am not "hiding" anything, just trying to use the correct words in context which for reasons unexplained only you would find such a big deal.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

If I wanted to "deny or hide the more prevalent term "primitive worker" would my edit say [6] say (Sitchin) "wrote that Enki suggested that to relieve the Anunnaki, who had mutinied over their dissatisfaction with their working conditions, that primitive workers (Homo sapiens) be created by genetic engineering as slaves to to replace them in the gold mines by crossing extraterrestrial genes with those of Homo erectus.? And it isn't inferred, it is stated. Dougweller (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

But that was not your original edit which you pointlessly twice reverted "laborers" and "primitive worker" back to "slave creatures". It was only after you researched it did you wise up and use the term "primitive worker" in conjunction with "slave". If you were not trying to hide anything why didn't you do it right the first time? Or do you just follow me around everywhere and revert every edit I make without even thinking about it just to spite me?Thanos5150 (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the timeline wrong. You removed the word slave twice on November 3rd, once with an edit summary saying, in part, "(Sitchin does not say "slave creatures" or "slaves" -- which is clearly wrong, so you shouldn't be surprised to be reverted. The point in reverting your removal of the word 'slaves' is that their slave status is an important part of Sitchin's concept of why they were created. So far as I know, I've been editing this article longer than you, I certainly didn't follow you here. Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I "replaced" the phrase "slave creature", not just "slave" for the more apt "laborer" then "primitive worker", both later reverted by you, which in the context of the sentence as it was written was more apt. You obviously know this so what the source of your twitterpation is I can only guess. And in the context the sentence was written my edit summary was correct in which I referred specifically to the 12th Planet which the sentence is derived from. Sitchin introduces and predominantly refers to them as do the original texts as "primitive workers" so how does it make sense as the sentence was originally written to use "slave creatures" instead? It doesn't. Yes, it is correct to say they "created a "primitive worker" as a slave to work in the mines", but to say they created "slave creatures to work in the mines" is not. Somehow you have mutated a simple edit into some grand conspiracy which common sense should tell you nothing could be farther from the truth. This is a simple concept to understand so I'm not sure what your point is. And no, I was not surprised to see it reverted, but not for the reasons you imply. But honestly, you do follow my edits though, right? Regardless, the edit has both "primitive worker" and "slave" which is appropriate and the term "slave creature" was removed. For me the matter is closed. I've wasted enough time here as it is.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I questioned Zecharia Sitchin face to face

I questioned Zecharia Sitchin at the close of a lecture. He took questions from the audience. He had no idea that a Tell is an archaeological digging site. Nor could he remember the name of a museum where he claimed to have examined their ancient texts for 20 years. I found this to be a bit odd. User:Kazuba 14 Nov 2010

Freakin', bloody unbelievable Kazuba. Thank you very much for your testimonial which confirms everything others have reported about Sitchin's pretensions to scholarship and authority for years on this entry. When I read The 12th Planet in 1976 I was flabber-ghasted that there were no detailed citations to the scholarly literature giving author, article title, journal title, date, and page range as is the usual custom in publications such as Sitchin's. All he showed was a list of books, journals and other publications in the field of Assyriology and related Mesopotamian studies. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Not that I disagree or have anything to add vis a vis the scholarly credentials of Zecharia Sitchin, but I want to remind you guys that WP:NOTFORUM applies. We're not here to discuss Sitchin, just to write the article. Serendi^podous 17:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I