Talk:Zecharia Sitchin

Opinion

In the section titled Ideas there is the following sentence:

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.

Calling this absurd seems like a value judgement on the idea. Does wikipedia as an entity feel this idea is absurd or do other sources in the scientific community feel this way? Also in that section is whole paragraphs worth of quoted text

The scenario outlined by Sitchin, with Nibiru returning to the inner solar system regularly every 3,600 years, implies an orbit with a semi-major axis of 235 Astronomical Units, extending from the asteroid belt to twelve times farther beyond the sun than Pluto. "Elementary perturbation theory indicates that, under the most favorable circumstances of avoiding close encounters with other planets, no body with such an eccentric orbit would keep the same period for two consecutive passages. Within twelve orbits the object would be either ejected or converted to a short period object. Thus, the search for a trans-Plutonian planet by T.C. Van Flandern of the U.S. Naval Observatory, which Sitchin uses to bolster his thesis, is no support at all."[3][4]

Sitchin's theory "posits 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."[5]

Is it normal to included that large of a quote mixed in with wikipedia text?76.106.50.133 (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No controversy

Bizarre. "Controversy" over his theories? It seems to me there is no controversy. Absolutely everyone in the position to form a valid opinion on such matters has disregarded the theories. Why, then, does an encyclopedia do differently, including nonsensical arguments back and forth that look like they came out of a ufo-ology newsgroup? Talking about "controversy" and "rebutting" crackpots is not NPOV. As soon as you start into this sort of thing, you've elevated the legitimacy of the crackpot and given the impression that reasonable people disagree about his nonsense. It is fundamentally misleading, not NPOV, to engage in this sort of thing, especially in something purporting to be an encyclopedia. The rabbit in the suitcase 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Racism

The UFO cult is based on Blavatsky, who based her teachings on Brahmanist Aryanism. Sitchin is sure to describe the first real human as Caucasian.

Sitchin clearly portrays all of us as hybrids, half-evolved and half-created. Terrestial evolution, in his view, was interfered with. The psychological depth of understanding that servitude is programmed into us culturally, developmentally and genetically is an important non-racist concept.

The variety of talents and genius humans display are mixed, in Sitchin's approach, with the cold, antisocial, competitive, and ethically undeveloped personality traits of the Annanaki. Despite their longevity and technology the Annanaki who chose to portray themselves as god-like and superior committed a hoax, according to Sitchin.

Sitchin does suggest that there have been a variety of breeding projects. But none of these are portrayed as the real humans. Temple servants or warriors, we are all blinded by propoganda, awaiting the missing leadership of the departed Annanaki, or misled by those who may have remained to toy with us.

The suggestion he makes of the blonde hair of one of the first Annanaki surrogate mothers in the implants of the genetic experiments to create an "adam" in "our likeness" does not establish any superiority for blonde hair even if it is read as an alien trait. We were all left with genetic defects, limited lifespans, and preprogrammed confusion. Mountainsidereview (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream scientists and historians"

(See WP:AWT)

The article states:

• Sitchin's claims are generally considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists and historians.

Is this an assertion and not based on actual sources. Who are these scientists and historians? Why isn't pseudohistory also mentioned? Please, provide sources.--AI 02:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above statement Is this an assertion and not based on actual sources, is totally inacurate, and it shows

the author to be completely uneducated in sumerian, Akkadian history, archeology and general studies.

Almost all of Sitchin's works are based on the work of well known main stream scientists such as Samuel Noah Kramer.

This is also weasel terminology.--AI 20:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a point at which a generalisation becomes weaselling. This is not it. The "generally" here is not being used to avoid revealing that only one or two people oppose the theory: it is being used to avoid stating flat outright that all mainstream scientists oppose the theory, in case there are one or two who may support it. For minority theories proposed by people widely considered cranks, the question is not "which specific scientists oppose these claims" -- it is "who, apart from the person proposing them, supports them". Haeleth June 28, 2005 09:44 (UTC)

Please provide references here with explanation and not just a suggestion that I look at the external links.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

AI, I already pointed you (on the talk pages of other articles where you tied to push Sitchin's false claims as if they were factual) to Wikipedia official policy on Neutral Point of View that very specifically shows that claims of pseudscience have to be labeled as such, so this is neither weaseling. As far as sources, if you'd bother to check the external links, you'd have more than enough evidence to the undeniable facts that Sitchin is considered a raving lunatic by pretty much everyone except the UFO believers crowd. DreamGuy June 29, 2005 02:56 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. You are only partially correct, your claim about the "few" believers is incorrect. Provide references with quotes preferable, here in the discussion page, not just a referral to the external links.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

In the late 90's I ran into literally hundreds of "believers", a large percentage of whom were American Indians or people interested in American Indian culture. They were not part of a UFO crowd, but rather religious and philosophical crowds of researchers, writers, historians, etc. They were the ones who explained Sumerian cosmology to me with photos of clay tables and reasonable explanation. They demonstrated parallels to various American Indian mythologies, regardless of Sitchin's claims.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

I have not been able to spell any references or sources because it was years ago and I no longer have access to the references which were hardcopies and not available online as far as I know. I'm sure there are other contributors who may have seen these references also, but since they are not coming forward at this time, I will not make any further claims, and DreamGuy is now free to enforce his limited POV over any theories explaining mythologies.--AI 29 June 2005 03:24 (UTC)

It has been almost a month and no one has has provided attribution of pseudoscience label.--AI 3 July 2005 07:10 (UTC)

"Zecharia Sitchin, along with Erich von Däniken and Immanuel Velikovsky, make up the holy trinity of pseudohistorians. Each begins with the assumption that ancient myths are not myths but historical and scientific texts. Sitchin's claim to fame is announcing that he alone correctly reads ancient Sumerian clay tablets. All other scholars have misread these tablets which, according to Sitchin, reveal that gods from another planet (Niburu, which orbits our Sun every 3,600 years) arrived on Earth some 450,000 years ago and created humans by genetic engineering of female apes. Niburu orbits beyond Pluto and is heated from within by radioactive decay, according to Sitchin. No other scientist has discovered that these descendents of gods blew themselves up with nuclear weapons some 4,000 years ago. Sitchin alone can look at a Sumerian tablet and see that it depicts a man being subjected to radiation. He alone knows how to correctly translate ancient terms allowing him to discover such things as that the ancients made rockets. Yet, he doesn't seem to know that the seasons are caused by the earth's tilt, not by its distance from the sun....

Sitchin, like Velikovsky, presents himself as erudite and scholarly in a number of books, including The Twelfth Planet (1976) and The Cosmic Code (1998). Both Sitchin and Velikovsky write very knowledgeably of ancient myths and both are nearly scientifically illiterate. Like von Däniken and Velikovsky, Sitchin weaves a compelling and entertaining story out of facts, misrepresentations, fictions, speculations, misquotes, and mistranslations. Each begins with their beliefs about ancient visitors from other worlds and then proceeds to fit facts and fictions to their basic hypotheses. Each is a master at ignoring inconvenient facts, making mysteries where there were none before, and offering their alien hypotheses to solve the mysteries. Their works are very attractive to those who love a good mystery and are ignorant of the nature and limits of scientific knowledge.

Sitchin promotes himself as a Biblical scholar and master of ancient languages, but his real mastery was in making up his own translations of Biblical texts to support his readings of Sumerian and Akkadian writings. ....

Most of Sitchin’s sources are obsolete. He has received nothing but ridicule from scientific archaeologists and scholars familiar with ancient languages. His most charming quality seems to be his vivid imagination and complete disregard for established facts and methods of inquiry, traits that are apparently very attractive to some people."

There comes a time in a discussion when one must say "Let the blind lead the blind". Main stream science is as pseudo as the ones they called pseudo. The more main stream history and archeology I read, the more I realize the state of chaos and ignorance main stream scientists are in.

Nazis from OUTER SPACE!? What? Are you trying to make a point AI? Zeelog1 May, 19 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.37.128 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

collated crackpottery

I've recently collected material on Sitchin's theories from other articles and moved it here, since I do not believe it was appropriate to place such fringe nonsense in otherwise serious articles (see Talk:Nibiru). The pages in question are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nibiru_%28myth%29&oldid=22682103
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_Planet&oldid=22644228
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenth_planet&oldid=22500841
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anunnaki&oldid=21147920
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anu&oldid=22660173
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enki&oldid=22579021

Brickbats and backslapping may be directed to my talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

"I've recently collected material on Sitchin's theories from other articles and moved it here, since I do not believe it was appropriate to place such fringe nonsense in otherwise serious articles" - I take issue that any of this can be considered a "serious" article. Whether I agree with Sitchin or not (and before you give me grief.. I don't") this entire article is rediculously one sided. On this alone I can state that it is not "serious." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.100.246 (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Biographical details

Can someone collect more biographical details about her? e.g. DOB--MacRusgail 04:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

He is actually a him. There's some doubt about the biographical detail already in the piece as it's lifted wholesale from the publisher's website (potentially a copyright issue, but I detest copyright paranoia). His publishers say: "Zecharia Sitchin was born in Russia and raised in Palestine, where he acquired a profound knowledge of modern and ancient Hebrew, other Semitic and European languages, the Old Testament, and the history and archaeology of the Near East." Leave out the word "profound," and that's what we have. We need someone to find his actual c.v. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.109.95 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

best-selling?

I just heard of Sitchin for the first time a few minutes ago. I'm 58 years old. "Best-selling" is a relative term, but by what standard does Sitchin earn the title? None of his books, old or new, are among the top 3,000 sales rank at Amazon.

Removed the term. If it's to be replaced let's have some reliable sales figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.109.95 (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Some cleanup

I've edited the criticism section to remove the odd Q&A layout, and modified some of the genetics section to make it better set out. I've also made it clear that the 2001 Nature paper does not claim that 223 genes are unique to humans, as is Sitchin's claim, rather that they do not occur in yeast or invertebrates, but do in higher animals (a point which was somewhat distorted).

Additionally, does anybody have a source for the first criticism (Sitchin's planet being too cold)? I don't believe that anybody has criticised that directly, as Sitchin has always claimed that it was internally heated - so it's a bit of straw man and should be removed.

--JonAyling 22:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Addition of "Confusing" template

This section uses technical terminology far beyond the understanding of the average person, such as "horizontal gene transfer" and even perhaps "genomic evolutionary tree" and an explanation of what bacteria have to do with chimpanzees and humans. (Yes, I do know what it is referring to.) Either there should be a link to an appropriate article or one should be written. Because the concept is fairly complicated and important for reasons having nothing to do with this article, I don't think it should just be a footnote.

RickReinckens 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Zechariah Sitchin

Is Zechariah Sitchin and this article the same? Arbusto 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. The two need merging.--cjllw | TALK 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

just a note to indicate this was done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.55.109.95 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Major Edit

Hi all, I have made a complete edit of this webpage. First, the article was way too long and repetitive. It would discuss the Nibiru thesis and then have a separate section for the Nibiru thesis and discuss it again. The Anu and Enlil, etc sections were superfulous, they were aliens who became gods. That can mentioned with a sentence or two. The "impact" section was muddled, too long, and disjointed. I stuck it with controversies. Please add to it, but don't go too in-depth; this is an article about Sitchin. If you want to go into mind-numbing detail about Nibiru and Lilith and spaceports in the Sinai, etc, create a specific article about his theories. The introduction was entirely too long (so long, I wonder why some other Wikipedian hasn't caught it yet). I have also added a Sitchin photo from a book jacket. I have cut some silly external links and split them up a bit. Some of the criticism was not NPOV and derisive.

Some problems. The "See also" section is, I think, too long. Some external links seem like they are plugging a book. Should they be removed? Someone should really track down more details about Sitchin's life and education (his birthdate for instance). A source needs to be added for the statement I put in a footnote. And until Sitchin can back up that assertion, I think it should stay a footnote.

As for the people who want this article better cited. I believe that Sitchin's books and the external sites listed should serve as good enough sources. Here is why. Sitchin has huge bibliographies in his works that make it seem like he really did his homework. They are really some solid sources, but he doesn't footnote a damn thing, so you can't check any of his facts or any of his assertions. (As an historian, it is an excurciating pain in the ass.) Sitchin is not accepted by the scientific or historical community, no matter what books he sticks in his reference section. Just because I say that the Universe was created by a guy named Norman and put Stephen Hawking's books in my bibliography doesn't mean that I am an accepted scientist and everyone should believe that a guy named Norman created the Universe. In fact, I would and should be called a fringe scientist.

And yes, I own all Sitchin's books. Do I believe the thesis? No, but it makes for good reading, and if he footnoted the damn books you might be able to pick out some good points.

TuckerResearch 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sitchin's cosmological descriptions of Sumerian or Annanaki views of the solar system are only a small part of his writing about the nature of civilization and the correlations of Old Testament to earlier sources and artifacts. Mountainsidereview (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

To Zechariah or to Zecharia?

His books definitely say Zecharia Sitchin. Zechariah Sitchin should be redirected to Zecharia Sitchin.

TuckerResearch 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Please merge. Badagnani 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

I don't think it's very encyclopedic to have a section criticizing the subject, followed by one that refutes the criticism, and neither of them having references. Instead, both sections should have quotes or references to scientists arguing against his theories, and him defending them. Makerowner 05:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just plastered that section with "citation needed" links. --Koji (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing it now. Heiser deals with all of it. His pdf at http://www.michaelsheiser.com/VA243seal.pdf is very good.

'Raised in Israel'?

If a man was born in 1922, he couldn't be raised in Israel, which was created when he was well into his 20'th. Therefore, I shall revert the last edit by the anonymous user 151.191.175.196.--JoergenB 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of unabashedly pro-Sitchin material

I have removed some blatantly pro-Sitchin material and wording that is unsourced.

And I removed: "(The 12th Planet now in its record 45th printing in the U.S.)," do we have any citation and proof for this? And what is implied by "record"? The Bible has been through many more printings, and, last I heard, Guns, Germs, and Steel is the best-selling modern non-fiction book in the US. So, as much as I enjoy reading Sitchin, I do like some of his ideas, we have to be corect, fair, and even-handed.

TuckerResearch 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The section of arguments against and counter argument is not written according to scientificly adequate manners (Since both mainstream science and Sitchin and its propents claim to follow the scientific principle, their arguments should do as well).

First, the claim that, if alien gene is present in the human genome it would have been found by now is scientifically rude. The phrase, no evidence from DNA has been yet found to confirm the presence of alien influence in our gene, is scientifically more appropriate.

Second, from the fact that no alien DNA has been yet found does not follows that "our DNA does indeed contain [alien] genes". Since no evidence is yet found, the claim of the presence of alien gene is an unproven hypothesis. It is thus not a theory. To the point of exaggeration: that no uranium is found in the human genome doesn't mean in any way that a) uranium indeed is present in the DNA but that it has not yet been found and b) the scientist can say that the human genome really doesn't contain uranium merely because of the fact that it is empirically hasn't been encountered. The reasonability and relevancy-for-research of a claim or hypothesis should first be discussed and put in contrast with other estabilished scientific knowledge, e.g. that no radioactive, heavy element is likely to positively participate in a living organisms metabolism. It follows that the scientist does not claim the absence of the alien gene or does not claim merely because there is no empirical evidence. The scientist cannot justify the worth of the research and reasonability of the particular claim.

"Indeed, the gene that predisposes people to heart-disease, for example has also not yet been identified."

And no gene is yet found that predisposes us to like Jazz music rather than Rock or the gene that predisposes us to move to a city where air is highly polluted or many other genes. Do we assume here that for every single pecularity of a human there is a gene at work? I assume I need say no more on this.

"That present-day genetics has not yet discovered evidence that supports Sitchin's theories is simply because no self-respecting geneticist would threaten their reputation by publishing any papers that support such a theory."

If it is "simply because" then it follows that the replier just assumes that the 'theory' of Sitchin is true and that if the geneticist doesn't find the gene, its not the problem of the 'theory' but of the geneticists unscientific attitude. It follows that it is the duty of science to find evidence for Sitchin's theory that is just true and actually does not need evidence. The alternative possibility that it is "simpley because", or, more adequately said, "it could because" the theory could be wrong is not considered. The counter arguments of the proponent of Sitchin here are prototypical of pseudoscientific arguments. 82.170.248.73 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)NimaM

There in fact is evidence of 'alien' DNA in the human genome. See http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01288.html -Ian

I am new to this and trying to figure out how to edit this article. The above comment and link supporting the discovery of "alien" DNA is an absolute hoax and needs to be removed from this website immediately. Anyone who has taken the time to recognize how riduculous the article is, and has checked the validity of the source, has discovered it is a hoax.I am going to attempt to remove this statement from the piece.67.142.130.29 00:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "hoax" statement and link

I have removed this statement:

However, Proff. Sam Chang, a coordinator of the Human Genome Project, along with other researchers in the group, have postitively identified alien DNA in the so-called 'non-encoding' sequences ('junk' DNA) of human DNA. This new development supports Sitchin's assertions.^[3]link title

This link and the information is provides are a ridiculous hoax. I'm not at all sure that ALL of what Zecharia Sitchin presents isn't a hoax ), but let's at least start with what we know . . . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.29 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC). 67.142.130.29 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this. I DO believe that Sitchin's information is a hoax -- and yes, I have read it, and in fact lived with a man who was one of his mindless followers -- desperate believers. You can call it psuedo-science, but I call it insanity. I would remove the entire webpage and others like them, but of course we must allow for gullible people to fall in the rabbit hole if they so choose. That is their right, though I don't know what it says about the future of humanity . . . 67.142.130.29 01:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you'll need to provide evidence (credible, reliable, 3rd-party sources) as to this being a hoax. Oh and you might want to create a Wikipedia account, yourself, for your own credibility's sake...especially considering your IP addresses numerous past vandalisms... -Eep² 04:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot be involved in vandalism of any kind as I am totally new to Wikipedia and only got involved in editing this page because it infuriated me that hoax material was put up as fact. I did open a Wikipedia account, so I don't know why that isn't evident, but I guess I'm not sure how to use this program yet. Anyway, I do not need to provide evidence that the information was a hoax, someone else -- perhaps you? -- needs to provide evidence that it is real. The article has every earmark of being a hoax. Aside from using your COMMON SENSE (do you have any left?) regarding whether this amazing discovery of alien DNA is in fact real, you might notice that the people this article sites do not exist, the information it sites exists nowhere else. When you search for any corraborating information regarding the sci-fi claims of this "alien DNA" article, you find absolutely nothing, and no corresponding scientific information. The Human Genome Project issued no such claims. Other people on the internet have discovered this hoax page, searched it out, and of course felt ridiculous for even thinking for a moment that this might be true. You can find their comments online. This exemplifies the type of insane activity you are confronted with involved with the dangerously delusional world of Sitchin and his followers, who seem to operate under the flawed thinking that the rest of the world has to prove their wacko theories wrong, instead of the other way around. It is important that Wikipedia pay attention to delusions posted as fact. 66.82.9.92 20:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, learn how to login to Wikipedia. Second, you're not providing any sources for ANY of your claims that you just made above. Show the evidence. Third, it's "cites", not "sites". Keeping a neutral viewpoint will keep the alleged delusions at bay. As I have it worded now, the claim is stated in a neutral viewpoint.[1] Even if it IS a hoax, I believe it is notable and worth mentioning as such. -Eep² 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, further research has led to a few things, but the issue is still left unanswered:

• Linda Moulton Howe conducted research into the identity of "Sam Chang" and featured The Canadian article (which she mistakingly refers to as a blog). Unable to find any Google references to Chang, she interviewed John McPherson, former co-director of the Genome Center at Washington University who, according to Howe's interview, never heard of Chang, has no recollection of ever working with him, and thinks the article is "kind of funny". However, no determination as to The Canadian's article's legitimacy is established. (Earthfiles: Human Genome Project: Junk DNA Is Still A Mystery, Linda Moulton Howe, January 18, 2007)

• A person on a discussion forum claimed (from an "email from a friend at Myspace) that there is no Sam Chang on the Human Genome Project, but there is a Violet Chang who never issued the report, and that the article is a 5-year-old hoax.[2]
• A person on a discussion forum claimed the author was originally "Mary Mageau", not "John Stokes".[3] Unfortunately, the Internet Archive doesn't have this article at all.[4]
• A UFO discussion forum member investigated this recently and found a few things:
  • A "Samuel C. Chang" is mentioned in [5]
  • Another The Canadian article
  • The original article seems to have appeared on a Czech website in 2003[6], but an email mailing list claims a 2001 date.[7]

Obviously, more research is necessary as to these claims... Regardless, I still think this is notable for inclusion since it seems to have caused quite a stir on the Net. -Eep² 08:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ease on there, Eep. You probably did not intend to be as brusque as your comments sounded, but the anon contributor (who by the way is quite at liberty to edit from an anon ip address if they so choose) is being perfectly reasonable. It is instead the original claim (that someone has 'positively identified' extraterrestrial DNA) that would need to be backed up by at least half-a-dozen ironclad cites. The conscientious research you've subsequently provided only strengthens, if anything, its appearance as a self-evident hoax. If the claim had been left in and described as a hoax in the text itself, then yes we'd probably need a cite or two that explicitly describe it as a hoax to avoid appearance of original research in the characterisation, even if obvious. But, in the absence of any cite saying it was true or even that anybody seriously believed it, User:67.142.130.29 acted quite correctly to remove a statement so outré, as to demand extraordinary levels of validation. Removing the text requires no citation.

The internet abounds with bizarre claims, only a handful of 'em are persistent enough to pass notability muster. I'm not convinced this is one which does. Unless Sitchin himself has tried to use it to support his ideas, I don't think it has a place to be mentioned here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Anything that can cause that much of a stir online warrants inclusion and is notable, to me--especially when it just won't seem to go away. -Eep² 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever the extent of the 'stir' this particular hoax has caused among the online community, I've seen nothing yet to relate this claim to Sitchin, and consequently do not think it should be mentioned here. Sitchin does not just make any claim about extraterrestrial DNA, he makes quite specific claims about what, who, when, and why. Thus it is not correct for the article to state as it presently does that "[t]his new development would support Sitchin's assertions if it is true." Sitchin says it was the "Annunaki from Nibiru" who 'genetically engineered' the sequence; the supposed identification of alien DNA in the sequence does not in any way support this claim- heck, maybe it was the Phlorophathins from Betelguese IV instead and Sitchin is sorely mistaken...!

So again, unless Sitchin himself has tried to use this 'identification' to shore up his house of cards, it shouldn't appear in the article. Perhaps, if the mysterious and unlocatable Prof. Chang's assertions are deemed noteworthy even if only for their amusement value, then the place for them to be mentioned would be something like ancient astronaut theories. Along with the debunking sources, of course.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see "Eep" has put this utter insanity back on the Sitchin page. Que lastima. Well, I'm afraid this experience is leading me away from Wikipedia. I just found it, and have been enjoying it all week, reading this and that page. But now that I know that people with no rational capacity are putting up whatever 'causes a stir' on the Internet and treating painfully obvious hoaxes like meaningful information worthy of an Encyclopedia, I just don't feel I can trust this website. It's a shame because it's a really great idea, but how can you stop folks like Eep from screwing the whole thing up? Then again . . . maybe the problem is the nature of this particular page -- Zechariah Sitchin -- and his type of follower. Perhaps I will not run into this kind of thing on a page not related to conspiracy theory? Anyway, Eep, I'm sure you mean well, but you are muddying the waters for the rest of us. I hope in the future you will develop more of a respect for, and recognition of, the truth supported by evidence. 67.142.130.28 05:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep, I owe you an apology. I should not be so rude to you, just because you are an amorphous online entity that I cannot come to blows with. It's tempting to be more rude to someone online than you would ever be in person. Frankly, it's because this hoax information really, really bothered me. I personally am quite dedicated to seeking out the truth of who we are, where we came from, and what it means to be human (or even non-human!). I take this seriously, and it pains me to find that this realm of seeking has become a hall of mirrors, where there is so much mis/disinformation, so many lies. If you truly are interested in discovering the truth, I would suggest becoming more vigilant in protecting and nourishing your own powers of discrimination and critical thinking, so that you don't get lost on the Path.67.142.130.28 05:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, user:67.142.., I hope that you reconsider leaving and stay, it strikes me that you'd have a lot to contribute here. Unfortunately, content disputes and disagreements prove to be frustrating exercises on odd occasions, and it's a pity your early editing encounters have been of this nature. However, by and large this is not the typical experience, and after a bit of work and time these disputes tend to have a way of being worked out; there are comparatively few utterly intractable ones. And yes, the probability of running into such incidents has some rough correlation with the nature of the topic to hand; there are many more harmonious places, and if one proves too troublesome there are 1.7 million+ others that could be worked on.

In any event it seems that friend Eep has gotten themselves blocked for a short period for some other matter, so may not be in a position to respond right now.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

To the anonymous user, it would help if you actually created an account with SOME kind of identity (aside from IP address). Anyway, I am also interested in the truth, so if you can provide evidence that this "hoax" is indeed a hoax, great. I have already provided some references for one person mentioned in the article but, again, I said more research is necessary. I'm quite busy with many things on Wikipedia lately (like my ban mentioned above) so I don't have the time to research everything. Fortunately, I'm not the only one interested in these things, so if you have some credible, reliable, 3rd-party sources to add to the article, further debunking this "hoax", by all means add it. However, note that the people I mentioned above (Howe and Salla) have not been able to verify if Chang even exists--they themselves just don't know and imply it is possible he DOES exist. So, take heed of that in your research. -Eep² 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep, I am new to Wikipedia and don't intend to be adding or editing much at all. I don't know what my "identity" should I create one will do for you in this situation. However, I DID create an account, twice now, so I don't know what exactly I'm doing wrong. It says I am now registered, but then nothing is different.

Again, login. It's really not that difficult a concept to understand. Are you new to computers and the Internet, perhaps? "Logging in" is a common concept... Also see Help:Logging_in. -Eep² 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, with regard to this hoax. Eep, let me just ask you to logically consider the possibility that the Human Genome Project has actually discovered that portions of human DNA come from aliens. Extra-terrestrials. ET's. Outer space. That would be a discovery of monumental importance not to mention something that would cause panic and chaos in parts of the world. Tremendous upheaval. It would change the nature of life on earth. If it were not immediately covered up, it would certainly be cause for discussion among scientific circles everywhere, and you would find countless articles about it online and would be able to view the corroborating evidence somewhere.

However, I knew this was a hoax immediately because the information was too fantastic to be true based on my common sense, because of the way the article was written which was unprofessional and lacking in credible scientific sources, way too long and filled with other conspiracy theorists listed as sources.

After researching and discovering that no such person as Chang exists at the Genome Project (certainly this person would not be difficult to find), I just shook my head and laughed and moved on. As you should do. Your thinking is backward if you think that I have to "prove" an obvious hoax is a hoax. YOU have to prove it is credible at all, which you cannot. That is the basis of the rule of law -- PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE. Anyone can make up charges, thank god that they are not considered the sole basis of conviction.

The truth of the matter is that, while beings from other planets may indeed have played a part on human evolution, no one knows this with certainty -- yet. Not Sitchin or anyone else. He has created a hypothesis that, intriguing and entertaining, and even cathartic as it may be, should not be confused with a proven reality. 67.142.130.14 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is, you have failed to provide evidence there is no Chang at the Genome Project. Again, refer to the sources I've already referenced that attempt to validate Chang's existence, but cannot--but that ALSO don't say it's possible he DOES exist in other parts of the Project. Research it deeper; don't just dismiss something at quick glance or limited research--research it until you can't go any further--and then research why; it may lead you to even deeper areas than you first saw... -Eep² 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Chang may exist somewhere in the Pliedian star system as well. I don't know where the elusive Chang resides, except in the imaginations of the tricksters, but he sure ain't at the Genome Project! Eep, you may enjoy wild goose chases, but I have better things to do. Tell me, what other apparent hoaxes should I pursue? What rabbit holes should I dive into? Are they all this important, or just this one? And what great fruits is this absurd search for reality within unreality supposed to yield, exactly? Why should I care about "disproving" an obvious hoax for your benefit, because you demand it, as opposed to, for instance, pursuing a deeper realm of truth that other responsible people (as opposed to tricksters) have already begun?

I am truly fascinated to hear your considered response, and since you are no doubt doing this work yourself, I'd like to be the first to know when you have located the elusive Chang. 200.94.232.12 20:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're the one (assuming you're the same person since you have a different IP address) who claims Chang doesn't exist at the Genome Project--prove it. Again, I quoted 2 sources with people who actually WORKED in the Genome Project who say they aren't sure Chang exists--but that he COULD exist there, for all they know. If you have evidence Chang has never worked there, prove it. I emailed Carolyn J. Brown who is affiliated with a "Samuel C. Chang" working in genetics[8] to see if it's the same person, but have yet to get a reply. If you have better things to do, go do them and stop worrying about this article if it bothers you so much. If you have other "deeper realms of truth", contribute them already. However, I still think the hoax is notable to mention as I have, neutrally--hell, I've even provided 2 sources that pretty much negate its validity, but that doesn't negate its notability--especially considering Zecharia's theory. -Eep² 03:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Eep, it is NOT NOTABLE. It is a HOAX. A stupid, juvenile hoax. If this is what you find notable, that someone has created a piece of garbled fantasy and added it to the pile of intellectual rubble and garbage one can certainly find online if they look (not to mention in books, newspapers and film), you and I will certainly continue to differ in our opinions. And the reason I have continued to write here is because I am personally surrounded by people, in my own life, who, like you, play lightly with truth and facts, and seem to be increasingly losing their capacity to rationalize. I wonder if it is an epidemic. I wonder, in fact, what the hell is going on. Maybe people are just going mad, they are so deeply in need of "answers." Well, I suppose it's always been this way, hence the cult mentality that goes back a to the dawn of man, and will outlive our parallel quests for clarity and truth.

And Eep, I never said I had possession of a deeper truth. I said I'm looking for it. And I know it isn't here. Anyway, that's all from me. Nice meeting you. Over and out. 67.142.130.21 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal sources... And, yes, it IS notable, for all of the reasons I listed--with reliable, credible, 3rd-party sources. Where are yours again? Oh, right, they don't exist--oops. Drive through. -Eep² 03:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Eep, I feel sure that you well know that one cannot in any absolute sense "prove" the non-existence of something; like the aether or unicorns, one can only point to its undetectability and the singular lack of any evidence that it does exist. The original articles containing this claim certainly do not provide any evidence that Chang or his publication are real. The HGP is a multinational and multi-institutional project involving thousands of researchers across many dozens of laboratories; even if there is no Prof. Chang in the NHGRI staff directory (and you can search, there is no-one of this name), you might still not be satisfied.

The claim is a palpable hoax, and you seem ready yourself to accept it as such. To echo our exasperated friend User:67.142.., what then is there to be gained by demanding the editors here prove it to be a hoax, when the only third-party sources -which you provided- say as much? In any event as pointed out earlier, this is an article about Sitchin and his specific claims, not about "exo-genetics" in general; the whole thing should be removed unless it is demonstrated to be tied to Sitchin- and presently there is absolutely no link on offer.

I note that The Canadian, the online "newspaper" in which this bogus claim is uncritically reported, has in its current issue a lead story with the title "Researchers suggest that Jesus may have been a descendant of Black human being-looking Extraterrestrial time-travellers"...by the self-same John Stokes, no less. I don't know about you, but I'm seeing a kind of theme here in that website - and it's one in which Reliable Sources and Verifiability are nowhere to be found.--cjllw ʘ TALK 14:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Then the hoax should be mentioned on junk DNA. However, in the Michael Salla comment I source in the article[9], he says:

This takes me to elaborating briefly on the exopolitical view concerning human DNA being encoded with extraterrestrial genetics. Many are familiar with the work of Zecharia Sitchin concerning evidence of genetic manipulation of a primitive hominoid that created humanity 300,000 years ago using the DNA of extraterrestrials called the Anunnaki. This is recorded in Sumerian cuneiform texts which Sitchin has translated. Dr Arthur Horn, an exo-anthropologist supports Sitchin's claims and argues that there are several intervention points in human evolution where he believes extraterrestrials introduced their own genetics into human DNA.

...

A number of researchers have explored [Alex] Collier's claims and find him to be credible. See: http://galacticdiplomacy.com/Contactees-Collier.htm. Collier's estimate of 22 civilizations is consistent with the work of Sitchin, [Authur] Horn and others who identify different intervention points in human history where extraterrestrial genes were added to human DNA.

-Eep² 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

is he a Jew or Azeri?

Well? Manic Hispanic 06:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, his last name is Sitchin,so i think he is jewish.Xinaliq.az 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Anunnaki does not translate to "heaven to earth" in any legitimate context. Now, I'm not here to disprove your theory, just knock off it's proposals. Really, the Anunnaki were only 7 of the Sumerian gods, the rest were Anunna. Besides, the Anunnaki didn't live upon the earth, they lived underground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NJMauthor (talk • contribs) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bad refs

I just wanted to note here that there are some pretty bad refs from some pretty non reliable sources that are throughout this article. I may try to get to them one day, but hopefully someone will beat me to it. Arkon (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will discuss them first. Michael Heiser is the main reference and he is hardly 'nonreliable'. Sitchin is, of courwse. :-) Doug Weller (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

it seems to me that little seems to known about sitchin a few decades ago he was among rhe few translaters of sumerian clay tablets . he has lectured to NASA on planet x , with regards to the so called mainstream reshearchers they seem to quote each others reshearch sitchin has the source mainstream follw each others scent and it is normally in a circle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwnndog (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sitchin wasn't one of the few translators, and his translations are wrong. A decade ago I was told by a Professor he had sophomore students who could read Sumerian better than Sitchin. I doubt that he ever lectured to NASA. Sitchin is a journalist by trade and it shows. He fills his books with huge bibliographies which are in fact usually pretty good and contradict what he writes, but they make the book look good and as though he's used them. What he doesn't do often is give any references for his claims, which means you can't check them. (sorry, forgot to sign) Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you were looking into Sitchin 10 years ago (in 1998) and you found a Professor who was teaching Sumerian to second year college students? Why don't you tell us about that? What college was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.9 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Professor Piotr Michalowski

George G. Cameron Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations University of Michigan, Ann Arbor His comment was I think in an email to me, but Michigan does teach Sumerian, and if you want to minor in Ancient Near Eastern languages, a prerequisite is basic Sumerian+Akkadian [10]. Some 1996 comments by Professor Michalowski: Begin quoted Usenet post: First of all, I did point out that the whole shem is a sham, but here is one more go at this nonsense. On p. 139 S begins this incredible rubbish by translating the Sumerian verbal prefix mu- as if it were a noun. That is like arguing that the /s/ in "dogs" is not a plural marker. but means, "bathroom." He seems to think that anytime the syllable /mu/ appears, it is the same thing. That is like arguing that -ness in "goodness" is related to the Loch Nes monster@! On p. 140 he really does a doozy, rendering zag.mu.ku as "the bright Mu whic is afar." This is news to everyone who thought that zagmu meant "new year" in Sumerian and ku (actually kug) meant "holy" or "pure," especially to the poor fellow who just published a whole book on the word! This is the holy processional barge for the new year festival! On p. 141 he invents a meaning for mu "that which raises straight" for which he provides not a shred of evidence. That is followed by five cuneiform signs which are meant to show the development of "mu." Only th first two are mu, the other three are completely different signs and have nothing to do with it at all. The final one on the left which he thinks is a conical chamber is actually a version of ninda (bread) or gar (to place), originally a representation of a beviled rim bowl, the standard ration bowl of the Uruk culture. After more nonsense on p. 143 he says: mu or its Semitic derivatives shu-mu (that which is a mu), sham or shem....But the universal application of "name" to early texts that spoke of an object used in flying has obscured the true meaning of early records". This is truly mindboggling! First, the root that comes out as shumu in Akkadian and shem in much later Hebrew is an old one, as attested by the fact that it occurs in other Semitic languages, including Arabic, as well in Ethiopic, that is in Afro-Asiatic outside of Semitic. This means that it is older than any contact with Sumerian and likewise there are no loans from Sumerian in Ethiopic! Just because two words have an m in them does not mean that they are related! You might believe that millions of people have misunderstood the Old Testament for thousands of years, you might also believe that one of the most common verbal prefixes in Sumerian actually refers to spaceships, so that every other or so Sumerian phrase is about one thing only, including cattle accounts! If you do that, you would also have to believe that in the Near East today people speak about speceships to each other every day and we have never heard about it! You might be interested to know that in modern Hebrew the word to name is indeed shem, and in Arabic it is ism, which derives from the same Semitic root! Every day people say, "your name please," or so we think, but they are really talking about spaceships! It would be impossible to point out every single piece of rubbish in this book, but every page is full of such nonsense. Enough already!

[END FIRST QUOTED POST}

[BEGIN SECOND QUOTED POST]

Subject: Re: Stitchin's Language Skills 2(was: Looking at Sitchin...) From: pio...@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) Date: 1995/12/21 Message-Id: <piotrm.91.000E3...@umich.edu> References: <4b588u$...@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <NEWTNews.29771.819485372.sagnier@vectra11> <shokwave-2012951508380...@dialup-88.austin.io.com> <DJxn5H....@ranger.daytonoh.attgis.com> <shokwave-2112950940510001@dialup-76 austin.io.com> <piotrm.89.000C4B10@ Organization: University of Michigan Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.archaeology,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.visitors,alt.ali n.research

Let us start with the chapter on Sumer: land of the Gods. Most S's summaries of Sumerian myths are from Kramer and reflect Kramer's time and predelections. I will not quarell with that. The moment he adds anything of his own, confusion enters. P. 90 he does not seem to realize that the Adapa story is Akkadian, not Sumerian, and that the earliest version of what he cites actually comes from Egypt, from the time of Akhnaten, when Akkadian was the international dyplomatic language. There is in fact a Sumerian version of Adapa, but S could not have known about it, as it was found only recently and we do not know how it goes, as it is still unpublished. IN the pages that follow he paraphrases rituals from the second half of the 1st millennium BCE, rituals that were written in Akkadian under the Seleucid kings! P. 95 he introduces Enlil, whose name he translates as "lord of the airspace." LIL, however, never means that, as I pointed out in previuos posts. P. 9 he claims that a Sumerian king complained about something to the Assembly of the Gods. The text that he is obliquely refering to is actually a literary letter written from the last king of Ur to his vassal in the northern city of Kazallu. Further on that page the fun really begins. "The third god of Sumer...bore two names E.A and EN.KI." ...E.a (the name meant 'house-water').

These are actually the two names, Akkadian and Sumerian respectively, for the same deity, but in two different languages. The thinks that E.A, although Akkaidian, consists of Sumeria e and a! Actually, the sign that we transliterate as e2, when used for early Semitic languages, has a value /'a/, the ' being the Akkadian equivalent of many Proto-Semitic glottal stops. When two vowels are written together, it is a writing convention for /aja/, not for a long vowel. Hence a-a is the writing of the wife of Shamash, who is actually Aja. Thus, most people believe that the real name of Ea was actually /Haja/. It certainly was not Sumerian--that was Enki.

Next page (100) "a city appropriately named HA.A.KI (Place of the water-fishes); it was also known as E.RI.DU ("home of going afar"). First, ki was a classifier for place names that was not pronounced. HA.A was read Kua'ra, and was a small place next to Eridu, not the same city. No one knows what Eridu means, but it was never spelled the way S analyzes in, but was written with the sign NUN, the symbol of Enki. When they did spell it sylabically, it was eri-dug, a fold etymology meaning "sweet city."

I skip some strange stuff. P. 107 "an evil god named Zu ("wise"). Zu is Akkadian, zu is Sumerian. This is the thunderbird, or lion-eaded eagle, symbol of Ningirsu, who was named in Sumerian Anzu (in old books Imdugud) , and that was shortened and borrowed as a full name into Zu (long u). Same page the mention of Sumerian mu, which means "name" translated as a "flying machine" without any reason, but has a very strange explanation further on!

109 "sacred precinct (the GIR.SU) in the city of Lagash" [this is repeated a number of times]. Girsu was the ancient name of the mound Telloh, while Lagash was the name of the neary enormous mound of Al-Hiba. Same page, he introduced the name of the Babylonian god Marduk, whose name he writes MAR.DUK and translates as "son of the pure mound." It took me a minute to figure out what outlandish mechanism had lead to this one; it must be Akkadian maru:, "son," and Sumerian du "mound," followed by ku "pure," likewise Sumerian! Just like Manhattan!

P. 111 "Nanna (short for NAN.NAR---"bright one")" Wrong again! Nanna is an old Sumerian name with no apparent etymology. Late in the first millennium a few scribes wrote it playfully with a final /r/, making a word-paly on Akkadian nama:ru, "to shine." This says nothing at all about it's etymology and cannot be reconciled with any imaginary nan and nar! P. 113 "Nanna's other name , Sin, derived from SU.EN...the same complex...be obtained by placing the syllables in any order, ZU.EN and EN.ZU were mirror words of each other. Nanna/Sin as ZU.EN was none other than EN.ZU (lord Zu)." He confuses writing and prononciation. In early cuneiform the order of signs did not conform to the order they were read in. Some words, such as ZU.AP = abzu, and EN.ZU = Su'en, were traditionally written like this even after the order had changed. Syllabic text indicate that EN.ZU was read Su'en, later as Sin. Again a Sumerian etymology with an Akkadian name (Zu) all mixed up, with no reason!

P 123. The etymology of Ishkur as "mountainous" because it has an element kur, "mountain, foreign land" is strange, but not as strange as what follows. The Akkadian name of this storm god as Adad. S derives it from Sumerian DA.DA, which does not even exist, and confuses the supposed Sumerian DA.DA with Hebrew "dod", which he renders as "lover" or "uncle"! Now three languages are confused. On the next page he confuses things even more by listing incorrect names of this deity in other languages, including Semitic Amorite, in which the name was Addu, not Ramanu. This and West Semitic Hadad, indicate that the root was 'DD in Semitic languages, but Hebrew dod, as well as the related Akkadian word da:du, are from a different root D'D. As we shall see later, S thinks that anything a little bit similar is the same, but in language phonemic differences are precisely those that make a change in meaning, hence in English "moose" and "goose" show that m and g are separate phonemes because they make such a difference. For S su is zu, shi is zi, etc.

P. 140 He proposes that the boat ZAG.MU.KU means "the bright MU which is from afar." This is all wrong. zag-mu is Sumerian for "new year" and ku means "holy, clean." This leads to pure fiction about mu. It never means "that which rises straight." Never in any text. He then provides a strange chart of the development of the sign mu, but only the first two of the five are actually mu, the rest are completely different, unrelated signs!!!! This leads on p. 143 to shu-mu, apparently the Semitic pronoun shu + Sumerian mu! This is simply impossible, and certainly never means "sky-chamber." When a slave is sold and it says X mu-ni-im, "X is his/her name" I really think it would be difficult to translate such a mundane document as X is his/her rocket!

P. 145 "fiery skyships...The Sumerians called them NA.RU ("stones that rise"). The AKkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians called them naru ("objects that give off light") He is actually speaking for the Sumerian word for a stone stelea, na-ru-a, which mean "demarcation stone." This was loaned into Akkadian as naru: (when a Sumerian word ended in a vowel and it was loaned into Akkaian, the vowel became long). He evidently confuses this with the Semitic root for "light" which comes out as nu:ru in Akkadian (middle vowel long, final short). He illustrates a naru on p. 152 and tells us on 151 that "this central figure (i.e. who everyone else knows was Naram-Sin of Akkad) is that of a deity and not of a human king, for the person is wearing a helmet adorned with horns--the identifying mark exclusive of the gods." Naram-SIn, grandson of Sargon, had proclaimed himself divine, and was in fact represented thus! More to come!

[END SECOND QUOTED POST]
Doug Weller (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Sun Symbol

The challenge by Svadhisthana to the authenticity of the Sun symbol represented by Heiser is unwarranted. This is no mere opinion of his since he supports the interpretation with examples from Jeremy Black and Ursula Seidl. Many other authorities might be added to this list, including Alfred Jeremias, Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur, Leipzig 1913, p. 252, and S.H. Langdon, Semitic Mythology, Boston 1931, p. 151, Vol. V of The Mythology of All Races. Phaedrus7 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The tag is there for the simple reason that the statement "Hundreds of sun symbols have been documented, and the symbol on seal VA 243 has no resemblance to the documented symbols" needs to be sourced. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The requirement to provide a source for "Hundreds of sun symbols have been documented..." is absurd BECAUSE this fact is common knowledge in the fields of Assyriology and Mesopotamian studies and it is a guideline in scholarship that "common knowledge" does not need to be sourced. The citations provided to Heiser's remarks immediately above this sentence provide ample justification to the "Hundreds of sun symbols..." phrase. Considering that Sitchin bascially makes it all up as he goes along and gives etymologies for Sumerian and Akkadian words that that are completely ad hoc and have no basis in the subject languages, as Univ. Michigan Assyriologist Piotr Michelowski explained in great detail on sci.archaeology in December 1995 and January 1996, it is a bit like gilding the lily to insist on strick, pedantic standards for sourcing long-accepted commonplaces, such as the ubiquitously documented Babylonian sun symbol against the bald assertion of Sitchin that the seal on VA 243 portrays a sun symbol that has never been documented by Assyriologists and other specialists in the field. BTW: one of Michelowksi's posts to sci.archaeology (with many cross posts) on Dec. 22, 1995, can be read at <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.research/browse_thread/thread/4af5e9bfd86808b3/9612cd2327d40067?lnk=st&q=#9612cd2327d40067>. An "advanced groups search" at googlegroups.com on sitchin in English by <piotrm@umich.edu> from Dec. 22, 1995, to Jan. 12, 1996, yields nine messages that handily dispose of Sitchin's knowledge of ancient languages and Mesopotamian cosmology. Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the absurdity of Sitchin. Again, the tag was a simple request for a citation. However, I am also aware of how difficult it can be to find citations which deal with pseudoarchaeology. ClovisPt (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Common knowledge" for specialists in a field like Assyriology is not "common knowledge" for readers of a general-purpose encyclopedia. The canons of scholarship to which you appeal call for different standards of citation and background explanation depending on the expertise of the audience. Anyway, Wikipedia is a non-scholarly work, and many of its editors have come to demand rigorous citations for every claim. Perhaps it's an overreaction to the real problem of an explosion of unsourced materials, but it's the local standard nonetheless. It would be a courtesy to provide an appropriate source, e.g. for people who only know about Mesopotamian astronomy through Sitchin but are inspired by this article to begin learning about the real Sumerians. It sounds like you have expert knowledge in the field; maybe you would be willing to recommend a standard source? 71.246.213.67 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sitchin and Nasa

I see there is a claim that Sitchin lectured NASA. When and where was this? Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The best I can discover via google.com searching <sitchin harrington nasa> is that this claim almost certainly refers to Sitchin's visit on August 30, 1990, with astronomer Robert S. Harrington, a key researcher in the search for a suspected Planet X along with Tom Van Flandern, which Sitchin took to be his twelfth planet Marduk/Nibiru. Sitchin's video reporting this visit can be viewed at <http://www.ufostream.com/view_video.php?viewkey=44259755d38e6d163e82> and the analysis of the editing of the video can be read at <http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread336798/pg15>. But Sitchin DID NOT visit Harrington at NASA in Washington D.C. Harrington was an astronomer at the U.S. Naval Observatory, which is where Sitchin met with Harrington. While it is possible that at some time Sitchin may have been an invited speaker at a NASA facility, as was the case for Velikovsky in the early 1970s at NASA-Ames and NASA-Langley, Sitchin's reported NASA experience almost certainly refers to his meeting with Harrington at U.S.N.O. in 1990 for which Sitchin attempted to conflate the astronomers' interest in locating a tenth planet (based on perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune) with Marduk/Nibiru, which is a total non-starter. Any claim concerning Sitchin's consulting with, or lecturing at, NASA does not deserve mention in Wikipedia. Phaedrus7 (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Doug Weller (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't believe in evolution?

I think I heard Zechariah Sitcin doesn't believe in evolution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Renamed & updated "Why Sitchin's Ideas Are Wrong" section

This section renamed to "Detractors", and removed bias, straw-man arguments, and obvious coloring words that further reflect a bias to lead the reader to agree with the previous anti-Sitchin position. Honestly people, if you don't agree with someone, coloring information so others agree with you is the weakest position of all.--84.103.37.194 (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems a user Aunt Entropy insists on keeping the anti-Sitchin biased text in this article, citing me for bias in the changes I've made... how does one bias get favored over another?--84.103.37.194 (talk) 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The section was never called "Why Sitchin's Ideas are Wrong"; that is absolutely false. Secondly, as this article concerns fringe beliefs, it cannot be written with undue weight given to fringe ideas.

"Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. " ---from the guideline on fringe theories

Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then your argument is that a section titled "Problems with Sitchin's claims" is not an inherently biased title? You may feel you're the "fringe police" here, but the reason for Sitchin being controversial, disagreement with the status quo, should not be overwhelmed by "I have a collective of friends who agree with me" type logic and such the article will only show that perspective. This is what you are proposing (and before you shift focus again to semantics, I am deliberately paraphrasing to illustrate the point).

This is not about "righting great wrongs", but as treating all information in an unbiased manner without taking sides with any so-called "authority". Report, but do not color; provide information without leading the reader to a determination (and giving only selective information IS leading).

The fact is, Sitchin gets much respect in many credible circles and because these sources don't create "I support Sitchin" websites, then this article should only reflect detractors? Rather, this article reads like the bio-section on the Crackpot dictionary and is inherently biased; anyone reading this article to learn more about Sitchin will likely dismiss him as such (that's the point right?) Have we not learned anything from history? That new ideas always are railed against by the keepers of the status quo?

You believe because you're told something by someone, then it is fact and anything else should be considered less; your editing monopoly on this article suggests this. This sort of behavior is where Wikipedia fails... if I pay enough of my friends to agree with me, then self-appointed, pedantic, Wikipedia police will consider my views as valid and people who come to learn unbiased information will be led astray as a result.

It's a travesty that you consider yourself a gaurdian here, when all you're doing is the same as those who would color it 'too pro-sitchin' (only you're coming from a different angle). I suggest you reconsider the wording in this entire article and make appropriate changes; I've tried to do this myself and you've blocked me. Good job.--84.103.37.151 (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No credible sources support Sitchin. He is fringe, and to give the impression that he isn't fringe would be misrepresenting reality. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so by your argument, a few words to suggest Sitchin is considered by some as "fringe" and not by others, should be sufficient and up to solid Wikipedia standards, no? But that's not enough? You must color the whole article, so your bias is clear? And so you justify your Wikipedia editing bias because you didn't find any sites that meet your personal definition of credible? Nice side step of the issue here, Aunt Entropy. As for "fringe", you, as someone who claims to be a proponent of fair editing, should know this term is highly subjective (which is quite obviously, the source of bias)... many noted and important researchers and social contributors throughout history have been deemed "fringe" at their onset, sometimes until well after their death, many whom I imagine you respect and support today (Copernicus is an easy example).

Wikipedia exists as a democratic source of information, intended to be untainted by bias and open to all; something that must be defended each day against those who seek to color the truth. Here you defend your bias by suggesting that bias in others requires it. Have you ever asked yourself if you're part of the problem? Can you honestly say this article is unbiased in it's current form? And you really think with your own bias, you have a right to edit Wikipedia for everyone? Interesting.

And here I always thought it best, with a controversial topic to which one is not an expert in, when I present information, I don't take sides and illustrate clearly and without color that there are conflicting views; neither in favor of the other. In such an instance, you Aunt Entropy, show your true colors, much to the detriment of the truth of the matter; if only you were so diligent in being unbiased as you are for playing "keeper of the fringe" and citing Wikipedia rules when they suit you (which rule is it that states you should draw & take sides on controversial topics?) Now, let's see what can you say next to side step this points... --84.103.37.151 (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start. First, you clearly do not understand our Neutral point of view policy. You use words like 'detractors' and " the aristocratic trappings of old academia" which show a clear bias. Now everyone has a bias, but part of our policy is that "Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." Your tone is actually pretty strident. You say you don't take sides, but your language clearly takes sides.

Also, much of your edit is your own work, your own original research, eg Sitchin's work influences many contemporary researchers who have shed the aristocratic trappings of old academia, who consider new interpretations and translations and are open to possibilities that typically makes old academia nervous. As such, Sitchin's work has naturally also influenced controversial writers. Sitchin detractors often cite a small segment of controversial writers as a means of discrediting Sitchin's work via an illogical Association fallacy. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles should report what reliable and verifiable sources have to say on a subject, not our own ideas. Read WP:OR

I think you need to learn more about Copernicus. Not only is he way out of the league of journalist Sitchin, his work was not deemed 'fringe', quite the contrary. And Wikipedia uses "the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Thus Sitchin is clearly fringe. I suggest that you read WP:FRINGE also. I hope if you read these you will get a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Doug Weller (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, the edit was made to balance out the obvious bias that existed (and continues to exist) in this article; it was done in part _as a means to promote a even newer edit_ that would be more neutral than either previous.

Back to the point, what is NPOV about this heading: "Problems with Sitchin's claims"? One thing many Wikipedia editors seem to not understand is that Neutral Point of View is not a shield to hide behind when you disagree with someone. If information is to be presented, it should not be colored to a particular viewpoint, which the current article clearly does. Selectively providing information, otherwise known as 'spin', is used in this article to lead the audience to an intended direction.

The often used "Controversy" applies here as it suggests there are dissenting views. Yet such wording is absent from the article... instead we get bias. You want to argue with me about the discussion page, when the simple issue is this: This Page Is Biased In Its Current Form. What is your response? Edit the article to remove *obvious* bias? No, instead you squabble about your definition of NPOV.--84.103.37.151 (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Current version has much of the previous bias removed. If you revert, explain yourself first here (see? Wikipedia rules work both ways!)--84.103.37.167 (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. You managed to cut whole swaths of sourced material. As this is a controversial article, you need consensus for such wholesale changes. You have to sell your reasoning for each change on the talk page because like it or not, this is a fringe subject, and there are special guidelines in place for those type of subjects. If you dispute that Stichin falls under the fringe guidelines, we can pursue dispute resolution and get an RFC started, but it will have to wait until tomorrow for me set it up. Aunt Entropy (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that you can't see the article is still very much biased. Your blatant reversion to my edits in effort to make the article _more neutral_, has even caused you to breaks your own rules. Case in point, you mention once again some broad sweeping claim against my edits (that exist to remove obvious bias, only enacted after I used the talk page to request such changes) and yet you claim "You managed to cut whole swaths of sourced material." but you yourself do not cite what was removed. The only parts I removed were ill-placed (many phrases were moved to their appropriate section), repetitive, or otherwise included to further slant the article to your preferred POV; an obvious bias. In any case, I await dispute resolution, as my attempts to follow known and accepted wikipedia content guidelines have been met at every turn with your reversions without anything but sweeping accusation on your part. I maintain, it does indeed "work both ways", so we shall see.--84.103.37.167 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For an article under Third Party review, you break the rules and revert without any explanation. Nice example. In any case, can someone explain to me what is biased or inappropriate about the current version of the article (preferably without editing it?)? The most detail in the article is on the fact that many people disagree with Sitchin, and yet it is somehow not anti-Stichin enough? Make your case here, and make it clear: what is wrong with the current version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.37.167 (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to derail the arbitration by suggesting the dispute is about "fringe" it never was, despite attempts to make it so, doesn't help. So in absence of any earnest attempt to respond the point of bias that I've raised... I've gone ahead and created entire talk section dedicated to the NPOV violations in the current version. Now, you have no more excuses and no further means to manipulate the issue... what say you?--84.103.37.167 (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Are Stichin's ideas fringe?

Removed tag about whether article subject is fringe, THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. In this case, obvious bias is hiding behind the fringe topic; even fringe topics deserve unbiased content; this is the heart of Wikipedia. See below for more.

The IP starting 84.103 has disputed the current stable version of this article, and is edit-warring to add his/her preferred version. The POV is quite different in the IP's version, not conforming to the FRINGE guidelines. So whether Stichin's ideas are fringe is the question that needs to be answered to start with, and should the article's POV be changed? Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments.
  1. I'm having a hard time seeing the problem here. the two versions are substantially the same (rewordings, a couple of sections repositioned), and while I can clearly see the bias on both sides. I don't see that this is such a major split that it can't be resolved through normal editing. has anyone tried for a compromise position?
  2. Before giving an opinion on the RfC question, I would like to clarify what this falling under the WP:FRINGE editing guidelines phrase means. what would the effect on editing the page be? what conditions would apply that don't apply under "normal" editing guidelines? I'm sorry to ask, but the way it's been phrased makes the issue sound unfortunately territorial, and I'd like to know the anticipated outcome before I give an opinion. --Ludwigs2 03:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Have you looked at some of the IP's edits, eg Sitchin's work influences many contemporary researchers who have shed the aristocratic trappings of old academia, who consider new interpretations and translations and are open to possibilities that typically makes old academia nervous. As such, Sitchin's work has naturally also influenced controversial writers. Sitchin detractors often cite a small segment of controversial writers as a means of discrediting Sitchin's work via an illogical Association fallacy.' That is, I think, an indication of what the IP editor sees as 'removing bias'.
    • In all fairness, the edit you refer to was my first edit on WP and I had made only to try to balance out the obvious bias that existed (and still exists) _in order that someone else could come along and remove ALL bias, including the ones I added_. Let's use current examples shall we? The most recent version of my edits, which keep getting reverted, is here [11] and referenced again below in the "Examples of NPOV Violations" section below. Prior to my most recent edits, I first studied at length, the guidelines to WP editing, and as you can see, I had removed the edit you take such care to reference, and made edits that are more NPOV and removed the ones that are not (a fact, which you are well aware of). So if you want to call me out on my examples, why not use my most _current_? Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time (not as if your effort was an accident, you intended to color this dispute by using my old misguided examples, to which I've already accounted for further up on the Talk page, as I have again here). Let's try to stay focused shall we?--84.103.37.167 (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, clearly they fall under WP:FRINGE. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. Clearly the article is on a fringe topic, no one disputes that. But being a fringe topic doesn't mean that subject of the article needs or deserves to be slanted. The current version of the article, attempts to remove obvious bias designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that the article subject is a crackpot; this is anthema to Wikipedia. Whereas the less biased version, simply states facts and criticisms, supporting no perspective other than an unbiased one. Fringe definition DOES NOT mean you color and ridicule the article subject when your POV doesn't agree.--84.103.37.167 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
     • Calling a fringe thinker a fringe thinker is not bias. Avoiding doing so is a violation of WP:NPOV, as it leads people to think the fringe opinions are more respected than they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
       • What part of "Clearly the article is on a fringe topic, no one disputes that." is not clear? No one says there is any problem considering this a fringe article. The problem is that there is inherit bias and the article hiding behind the excuse that "because it's fringe, it's ok to be biased". NO WHERE in the WP fringe definition is this supported or promoted; only in the case where there are edits making outlandish claims can one invoke the fringe privilege, but that is clearly not the case here. We have 1 translator / journalist with an unpopular idea, and this author's idea is being misrepresented with the article's current bias. 84.103.37.167 (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Outside comment - I agree with Ludwigs; I've read the differences, and I can't see that much that's inherently different in them, at least in the latest reversion. Would someone please clear this up for everyone on the outside? This argument sort of feels like an inside argument which we can only partially understand. I am a bit worried about about the current version; the IP credibly argues there is a "POV" problem, while Aunt Entropy only seems to be arguing that the IP is editing "against consensus", though this alone is not a good argument (consensus is clearly being challenged in an intelligent manner, and is thus not consensus by definition; and even if it were, it wouldn't mean the article were neutral). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Steering the dispute back to the core issue (was never about whether this article is considered "fringe") .

Examples section added below for proper discussion.

Examples of NPOV violations in this article

So here is the chance to discuss the issues... any takers or should we continue pedantic squabbling over WP procedure and continue using our friends to rvt for us?

1. In the 1st paragraph: "He asserts that Sumerian mythology reflects this view, though his speculations are entirely discounted by mainstream scientists..." "mainstream" is a biased word, adding the cited source is The Skeptics Dictionary. The author of the Skeptics Dictionary states clearly "the book is not meant to present a balanced view on occult subjects". So how is this a credible NPOV source? User User:Aunt Entropy alone prefers the above version, over the following edit: "As a controversial author, skeptics maintain his translations of ancient texts are faulty, as well his understanding of physics." which even maintains the ref to the non-credible source! Which version reflects a more NPOV?--84.103.37.167 (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Mainstream" is fine. Turning the mainstream thought on the subject into "skeptics maintain" is POV.

1. In the Ideas section, a paragraph starts: "This scenario is hard to reconcile with the Earth's current small orbital eccentricity of only 0.0167." No citation is given, and the article continues from the perspective that the authors "Ideas" are wrong, instead of flatly and without bias stating what the author's idea actually is. This is the "IDEAS" section, so should contain only pure fact, stating flatly "John Doe purports X & Y" and yet here we see many classic examples of "coloring" to lead the reader to a particular POV. Again, user User:Aunt Entropy prefers the above version, over the following edit: "Sitchin maintains the Earth's possessed peculiar early geography due to cleaving from the celestial collision, i.e., solid continents on one side and a giant ocean on the other. This is consistent with the giant impact hypothesis for the origin of the moon, an event estimated to have occurred 4.5 billion years ago."

• You moved the Ellenburger statements and references to the end of the section. Why?
• Cutting back the objections to Stichin's translations to "certain scholars" is POV and misleading. You weaseled the direct translation of seal VA 243, confusing it with the theory of connotation.

1. The entire "Influences" section is void of any references and purposefully is written to color the article. Proposed the following in response: [12] however, once again, user User:Aunt Entropy (the so-called "consensus") believes the existing version is the only one that is of sufficient quality.

• "Ideas similar to Stichin's" don't belong in the "influences" section.

1. Will add more examples shortly, although hopefully I don't have to go through every single example of obvious bias (there simply are too many). Any entry that references "cult" or references "mainstream" as a notion of value, or otherwise colors the content has no place in the article (and there are many entries like this). --84.103.37.167 (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
2. And another one in the Criticism section (section was titled "Problems with Sitchin's Claims" until my same recent efforts led to it being changed to the more NPOV "Criticism"): "When Sitchin wrote his books, only specialists could read the Sumerian language, but now anyone can check his translations by utilizing the 2006 book Sumerian Lexicon.[7]" and cites the Sumerian Lexicon by a different author. Now, there is no doubt or argument that the source cited is a well respected book and a good source if quoting something, but it is also just another book with an interpretation of a long-dead language to which there are no living speakers or writers of, similar to much of Sitchin's work. The phrasing weasily suggests this is not the case, and is deliberately misleading, further coloring the article to lead the reader to the intended POV that there is only 1 translation of Sumerian and the entire world agrees with it (of course, this notion is naturally negated by the simple fact that Sitchin's contrary translations exist). Yet the following edit has been rejected: Sitchin's translation's do not always coincide with the 2006 book Sumerian Lexicon.[4] As a result, certain Sumerian scholars believe Sitchin's translations of both individual words and of larger portions of ancient texts are incorrect.[5][6]" even though it also cites the Lexicon, and the same sources that follow the original. This edit is less "leading" or coloring, yet it is rejected. Why?--84.103.37.167 (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How many Sumerian scholars can you find who agree with Sitchin's translation? Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For the life of me I do not understand why there is so much resistance to accept the fact that Zecharia Sitchin is a crackpot of the first order. His "translations" of cuneiform texts have been totally discredited by fully accredited Assyriologists: Piotr Michalowski and Michael Heiser. Anyone who knows anything about science knows from a reading of Sitchin's first book The 12th Planet that the author does not know what he is talking about when he says Earth's seasons are caused by its changing distance from the Sun, instead of the correct cause: Earth's axial tilt. In the first book Sitchin has Marduk/Nibiru entering the Solar System essentially in the plane of the ecliptic since it "meets" every planet on its way in order, which can only happen with a co-planar passage. Recently, from what I have read, Sitchin posits Nibiru's orbit to be tilted about 30 degrees to the ecliptic, evidently with no explanation for this change. But, in any event, as astronomer Ton Van Flandern has explained on the basis of his extensive research on the stability of eccentric or cometary orbits, and has been cited in the Sitchin entry, no body on Nibiru's 3600 year orbit could maintain such a clockwork-like orbit over the duration Sitchin claims. If anyone claims 2 + 2 = 5 in base 10 arithmetic, he could be legitimately labelled a "crank" or "crackpot". The same reasoning leads to this label applying to Zecharia Sitchin. Phaedrus7 (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IP, you'll get a lot farther in your arguments if you do not personalise this and make it about me. The reason we had to go this far is you would never make a case for your edits and only used the article talk page to impugn me and my motives. That's not how things are done here. This is a collaborative project, and attacking others gets nothing done. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aunt Entropy seems to have a misplaced ego since nothing written by me was directed purposefully at her. My position is based solely on the content-less nature of Sitchin's work. "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck". Just because someone masquerades as a scholar, as Sitchin most certainly does, does not entitle him to all the deference accorded a genuine scholar. He is a crackpot, pure and simple. He refuses even to reply to critics, which hardly befits a true scholar. He is akin to Kingsley Amis's "Lucky Jim": "revelling in pseudo-resarch, shedding new light on a non-subject". Phaedrus7 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Phaedrus7 - I think you missed the 'IP,' at the beginning of Aunt Entropy's edit - she isn't reply to you, she's replying to the IP editor, who was blocked yesterday for 24 hours for 3RR. Doug Weller (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Weller, for the explanation. There are alot of protocols and "codes" to learn here at Wikipedia. I am going away for a long week-end and hope I do not get too far behind with my watch list. Phaedrus7 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And my belated apologies to Aunt Entropy for NOT recognizing her position in the discussion vis a vis "IP". Phaedrus7 (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Aunt Entropy succeeds in distracting from the issue (it's not personal, so don't make it personal). The simple truth is, a small number of dominant editors is keeping this article biased. This article does not conform to NPOV, it uses supposition and innuendo to influence the reader and the above examples still have not had any clear response to the facts presented (something the initial editors harped on so strongly). Now that the procedure has been followed, there is no response other than more distraction. Listen, I'm not saying Sitchin isn't a crackpot, I'm saying even crackpots should have the facts about them presented in a clear and unbiased manner on Wikipedia, not in a leading or coloring manner as is the case with the current article. Compare this article to other alternative historians (like [Graham Hancock] and you'll see what I mean.--84.103.37.63 (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)