Talk:Zecharia Sitchin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

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)


Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] "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.

[edit] 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:

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

[edit] Biographical details

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

[edit] Theological errors of Zecharia Sitchin

Zecharia Sitchin's books are not suitable for Catholics, because these books have major and minor theological errors in comparison to infallible Catholic Bible and infallible Private Revelations of many Catholic saints. As sample of Sitchin's errors may be used many logical and theological errors in comparison to Catherine Emmerich's revelations. Look there: [1] Sitchin lies that Babel Tower was a rocket, and protolanguage was Sumerian. But Catholic Catherine Emmerich trustfully reveals that Babel Tower was ordinary stone/brick tower and protolanguage was Proto-Indo-European instead. Look here for proof [2] in Catherine Emmerich talk section.

  • baahaahaa!--68.80.207.22 23:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sitchin = Satham = Satan - I give you etymological conotation of Sitchin and Daeniken with satan, because I noticed that Daeniken's hero Satham taken from comics about planet Des is etymologically suitable to be a missing connection that joins Sitchin, Daeniken and satan together, because UFO is a satanic agenda.

83.5.38.56

Whoever posted the previous paragraph is not helpful. TuckerResearch 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] '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)

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/c/Talk%7EZecharia_Sitchin_12bb.html"