Talk:Zecharia Sitchin

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)

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

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 09:56, 26 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)