Talk:Nibiru cataclysm/Archive 1

Hercolubus

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 23:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"eye opening book"? Isn't that POV? --CrisDias 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is still POV. Longer previous version (also not NPOV is here: [1]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoc2400 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I just received a book in the mail from this organization or individual. This article was quite helpful in identifying the origins of this book. U14207 (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-instated Planet X conspiracy theory

Many people who come to Wikipedia searching for Planet X are looking for information on this conspiracy theory. I think it should at least be mentioned, but as a conspiracy theory. Nibiru and "Planet X" are not quite the same; Sitchin has never said this Planet X would arrive as soon as Nancy Lieder et al are claiming, so it should be discussed separately. Serendipodous 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, the only context ive heard about it is in conspiracy sites and books. There should be a mention of this. /er

Nibiru

In order to take this from Urban Myth into the category of Worrisome Facts, it is necessary to provide sky coordinates that anyone with a good telescope can look at. A large body travelling into our solar system should be visible for years. AngleWyrm (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know What `if`Anythink,the-are Goverments Planning with regards to 2012`NIBIRU`?, or are WE just going to be left to SORT OURSELVES OUT?...

We shall look at the facts of the ancients who were free of media and control...the best telescopes are owned by the govertment....i believe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.212.134 (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the government will do anything but try to keep us, the people, distracted from the truth.Girlhikingmountain 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) S.S.

Nibiru (planet)

Who allowed this page? The take discovery.com website where they clearly laughing at this myth and then source it as proof for nibru fantasy? If you are to lazy to read the full article read the end: "One of funniest things about this Nibiru story is that it is a rerun -- there was a big Internet concern that Nibiru would destroy the Earth in May of 2003. Something tells me this didn't happen, yet now the same myth is resurrected. Are we condemned to suffer a Nibiru scare every decade in this century, or will people come to their senses?" This is not what wikipedia is about, making fake conspiracy pages to boost sales from people who are not smart enough to read the real sources Waffa 12:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okey i fixed the article to be more realistic, i am waiting feedback from others Waffa 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffa (talk • contribs)

Wrong category?

Surely that should be "WikiProject Crazy Bullshitters"? El Ingles 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that project would violate NPOV, not that I disagree. Serendi^podous 03:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nibiru/Eris

Okay this is no longer a hypothetical planet. Nibiru hs multiple names like Planet X and Eris. You can find facts about it on clips from the news, papers, internet. It can only be seen from the southern point. It's beginning to be known now to more and more people. Why aren't there any facts posted from photos? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philly2silly (talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Eris is neither Planet X nor Nibiru. It is too small to have anything like the gravitational effects hypothesised by either planet. Serendi^podous 19:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thundarr the Barbarian

I was watching this on Youtube (Youtube/thundarr) and the commentary is this: "Now I know what things will be like after Nibiru.","2012", "That thing looks like Nibiru". 65.173.104.138 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Location:"Thundarr the Barbarian", re.:Intro.65.173.104.138 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That would only be relevant if Thundarr itself referenced Nibiru. One guy's commentary on a youtube video hardly matters. Serendi^podous 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You serious???

I cant believe you guys actualy believe this. There used to be sub planets that crossed our planets path, but that was when the solar system was first made. Now they all collided, there are sub planets within the astoriod field that are known, i think there are 3. In fact pluto was downgraded into a ciper belt sub planet. This is idiodic, you do realize that there has ALWAYS been doomsday predictions that are supposed to happen in the near future, and guess what, so far their ALL wrong. and thats a fact.

NO!you're wrong!it actually comes!It comes with four horsemen of the Apocalypse and Spongebob will lead them!Aliens told me last week after I took my medication!

Did this come from the astroid that is supposed to come around on april 1, 2012? Its supposed to come so close it gose through satalite orbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.82.0 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when people use drugs, see?Leonnatus (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NASA/JPL link

Why was the link to official data related to the finding of the 10th planet from NASA? If someone can post information regarding theoretical interpretation of the Sumerian text, than I think relevant and real true data should be referenced such as NASA's article, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/newplanet-072905-images.html which also states is about the size of Pluto, which yes was declassified as a planet, but still the classification of the 10th planet has not yet be fully disclosed but they claim themselves finding the 10th planet. The external link should be reinstated to users interested in learning more about Nimibu which supposedly is Planet X, 10th planet etc. Not only that, but where is your reference for stating it is called Eris? Not in one single word on the article does it state Eris. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so far it seems to be run by amateurs not interested in facts.

The1who (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That entry dates from the time Eris's discovery was first announced in 2005. In their desire to link themselves to the discovery of a "10th planet", the Jet Propulsion Laboratory jumped the gun in writing that article before Eris's identity had been formally settled. Since no one knew if Eris was a planet or not, its name was not officially declared until September 2006. Before then it was known by its provisional designation 2003UB313, as you see in the article. Since the IAU ruled on the matter, Eris has been officially classified as a dwarf planet, not a planet. Regardless of its designation, Eris is neither Nibiru, nor Planet X, nor even hypothetical. See Definition of planet, 2006 definition of planet and Eris (dwarf planet) for more information. Serendi^podous 12:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: this artical is confusing, there are many dwarf planets, it will not be considered a 10th planet.

NIBIRU PICTURE

Hello I´m from Mexico, there are a lot of videos in youtube about the supposed aproaching of Niburu to the Earth in 2012, and in one video they said that today the planet is only visible in very southern lattitude, and it shows pictures of the Sun taken in Australia, and appears a small bright reddish point next to the sun, and they alleged that is Nibiru. I´m very sceptical about it and I thought that those pictures were fake. But today I was chatting with a friend who travels around the world because his work, and I remember that he went to Chile a few months ago. I asked him about the Sun when he stayed there, and I started to tell him about Nibiru, at the same time he was also chatting with some of his Chilean friends and one of them who lives in Viña del Mar took a photo of the Sun a few days ago. The Chilean guy remember that when he looked at the picture a strange bright point appeared next to the Sun and he send us the picture. That guy didn´t know anything about the Nibiru issue, he thought that it was a defect of the shooting. The object in the picture really surprised me, that definately isn´t Venus and neither the Moon. I´m starting to believe, what in the hell is this???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.92.10.72 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like a camera artifact. Notice the angel-shaped blotch in the middle of the Sun. Serendi^podous 10:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

2010 vs 2012

The text reads: "Project Camelot" claims to possess an anonymous letter from a Norwegian politician

Can a letter be anonymous and also from a known source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.199.56 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

All that is said is that the guy claims to be a Norwegian politician. Serendi^podous 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Secretum Omega conspiracy

I would be interesting if relevant content was added about the Secretum Omega conspiracy and its relationship with the Planet X narrative. In recent years an Italian freelance, Cristoforo Barbato received from an eyewitness some information about the return of Planet X and the activity of a presumed intelligence agency composed of Jesuit priests, whose code name would be S.I.V., "Servizio Informazioni del Vaticano," which in Italian means "Vatican Intelligence Service." Barbato's contact is a man who introduced himself as a Vatican insider working for the Holy See as a Jesuit. ADM (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You're going to need some kind of citation for what you're talking about. Serendi^podous 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

topic field

This article shoud not go under astronomy, but under the culture or religion section. Nergaal (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the Good Article topic? I didn't put it in astronomy; I put it in miscellaneous. Serendi^podous 07:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One of those things

I don't think I can include this in the article, but I feel I should mention that Jaysen Rand's website claims that the Earth's axial tilt has increased by 26 degrees, which means that Helsimki, Finland and Anchorage, Alaska are now where Istanbul and San Francisco used to be. I know you need sources to back up your comments but some things really don't need to be backed up. Serendi^podous 08:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a wild claim certainly needs to be backed up. Why wouldn't it?69.60.237.4 (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean it's so insane that there's arguably no need to refute it. However, since I doubt I could find any scientific text that explicitly explained why the Earth was not currently tilted by an additional 26 degrees, I have to keep it out of the article. Serendi^podous 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Disinformation

The redirection of the public seeking information regarding Zetatalk(Media:http://www.zetatalk.com/) or Nancy Lieder, to Niburu Collision is a popular example of Disinformation even used here at Wikipedia. How can this best be corrected?

Not disinformation; neither topic by itself is notable enough to deserve its own article. But together with the wider phenomenon of the Nibiru collision, they have notability. Serendi^podous 19:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nibiru not really a planet if even real?

I saw this crazy bull**** on youtube saying that Nibiru isn't a planet but actually the spaceship of the andromideans who have come here to destroy our planet. At first I thought "What the **** this **** is ****ing crazier than scientology!" Khrisiah (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's new. Serendi^podous 12:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

A point of order: this 'planet' is often mispronounced "Planet ex". It should of course be "Planet Ten". For the tenth planet from the sun to pose a threat of collision with Earth, its orbit would need to be highly elliptical or irregular.Colcestrian (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So you think Pluto is a planet then? :-) Lieder pronounces it "ex", and since this is her idea, we go with that. Besides, when Planet X was first proposed, it was meant to be pronounced "ex", since it would have been the ninth planet. It only became the tenth planet in 1978, when we finally figured out that Pluto couldn't have been Planet X.Serendi^podous 16:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Brown and other concerns

Who is Mark brown and why would anyone ask him questions about Pseudoscience? And why doesn't the article mention that this seems to be exclusively an internet phenomenon? There are no paper based sources cited (which makes an old school scholar like myself suspicious), if there are any paper sources they are likely to be more reliable than most of the internet ones and consequently would have to be cited. And if there aren't any then it seems appropriate to mention and explain why the phenomenon seems to be confined to internet subcultures. I also think it would be helpful to somehow relate the Nibiru beliefs to other pseudoscientific theories so that the casual reader will have an idea of what such phenomena are and how they spread. It seems to be related also to concepts within the sociology of religion such as Millenarianism/Apocalypticism and UFO religion. Finally it would seem resonable to provide an explanation of what the 2012 doomsday prediction is for the layreader. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

His name is Mike Brown, and he's the astronomer who discovered Eris, the so-called "tenth planet", as is mentioned in the section "Names". Because Nibiru is often confused with Eris, Mike Brown gets a lot of emails from panicked and angry people accusing him of being part of the "cover up." As to whether this is an exclusively internet phenomenon, that is not the case. Many books (indeed many dozens of books) have been published on the topic, but as I have better things to do with my time than read the ramblings of semi-literate morons, I prefer to cite other sources. (By the way, at least three books are cited in this article). The article explains that 2012 is the end of the current baktun cycle in the Mayan calendar. I'm not sure it needs to go into further detail than that. As to linking this article to millenarianism, not sure, because this doesn't really qualify as a "religion", at least not yet. Serendi^podous 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted these concerns because I considered conducting the GA review of the article, but on second thought believe I lack some of the expertise in this particular subject. However I think it lacks in the prose criteria it is simply obscurely written and fails to put a lot of it claims into a context that is intelligible for people who are not well-versed with internet phenomena, pseudoscience or astronomy. The mention of Mike Brown without any kind of explanation about why people would write him and without linking his name is an example of that as the other concerns I've expressed. You can choose not to deal with them, but I expect that a GA-reviewer will mention them during the review.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did link his name, and I mentioned that he discovered Eris. Perhaps I should have linked his name twice? Serendi^podous 13:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a reminder about who he is at the second mention wouldn't be a bad idea. I'll be bold. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Film trivia

The two films currently listed are 2012 and 2012: Doomsday. As far as I am aware, neither of these films directly uses the term "Nibiru" and the details of predictions for a claimed "Nibiru collision" show a forecast date (currently) 2010 not 2012. Consequently these films should be considered off-topic trivia and removed unless someone can point out where the films actually use the word "Nibiru".—Ash (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday certainly is trivial. It's an Asylum movie which basically means it's just a knockoff of the Emmerich one. I'd be happy to see it gone. But 2012 is not. Its viral campaign is being sold completely straight to the public as a government information website, and as a result people are literally calling up astronomers in a panic and asking if the world is going to be hit by Planet X in 2012. And, regardless of Leider's prognostications, this idea isn't hers alone and the vast majority of websites dealing with this collision now tack it onto 2012. I've read several accounts already on the internet by people who, after viewing that ad, were terrified the world was going to end until they read this wiki page.Serendi^podous 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that inclusion here is based on the Sony website and the public response to the website and marketing campaign (rather than the film itself). I suggest that this is integrated into the public reaction section rather than in a film section when the film in question may not actually mention "Nibiru" and has yet to be released (which means it would fail WP:CRYSTAL).—Ash (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Editing

Although I think there is nothing to this Nibiru Collision thing at all, I did do some editing to relieve the article of some of its sneering and bile. Whoever wrote it seems not only to dislike the idea (who wouldn't!) but really, really hates it. At any rate, the style is at times, I think, so out of pace with proper Wiki style that I did have to tone it down just a little. Someone with better editing skills than myself will do more along these lines in the future, as it is still something of a sneering, jeering article.

I must also add that I am not convinced of the citations and the history of this Nibiru thing. Someone who is more of an expert will have to revise this. Also, the whole thing could be better written and utilize more (and more varied) references.

Frankly, and I may be crossing a line here in saying this here, I find true non-believers even a little more annoying than true-believers. The fringes are almost always uncomfortable and often unreliable. 75.48.44.193 (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

However bilious you might think the article is, there is a difference between lowering the tone and changing the facts. There is no way in which you could claim that this idea "may" fail. It fails. Ditto the picture. The picture is a fraud. To suggest it is otherwise is to mislead. And mentioning the movie "When Worlds Collide" creates the sense that this is all a show, which it is not. Changing things which are established facts to make them seem uncertain is disingenuous. Serendi^podous 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not enormously sneering and jeering, but enough for a good edit. Gingermint (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are ideas in popular culture (from the 50's, the 19th Century and whenever) that either turned out to be fact or became fact. I don't think that the origin of an idea should be attached to the veracity of it. Gingermint (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So the fact that it was first propagated by a woman who believed she was communing with aliens through a chip in her brain should not count against its veracity? Serendi^podous 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

99.246.239.101 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I also believe the referencing in this article are a bit, to be blunt, wack. Another thing, it is said in part of the article that if there was a "Twelfth planet" then it would affect the outer planets of our solar system. Well, it is known that something is affecting the orbit of Uranus and Neptune. Coincidence? Lastly, this article is written based on opinion. Good job to the person before me editing it, because I can imagine how much worse it might have been. But an article like this should be written with clear, logical( not saying correct) science. 99.246.239.101 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's article on Planet X. There is nothing disturbing the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. The discrepancies were due to a miscalculation. And in any case, there is no way an object could be only three years away from hitting us and at the same time causing perturbations in the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. Serendi^podous 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)nsignedIP -->

Nancy Lieder is Crazy

That woman put her pets down, and caused hundreds of other people to do the same. She is CRAZY! She ought to be locked up in a Mad House or something. I cannot belive people go inot things like this. No-one listens to actual scientists anymore. Seriously, if Nibiru Existed we'd have seen it for a long time already. And as some theories say, you can see it form the south pole only. Now, if that's true then I'm Superman. if anything can be seen form there, it can be seen from anywhere on the southern hemishpere of Earth. Now going back to Nancy Lieder, Oh my Lord, Zetas? God save us! She made it all up! - any replies commenting that Nibiru is real will be ignored. Kolo-Dearney 16:44 Mon. 7/5/10 ``

This Article Should Be Deleted

I usually defend an article's right to exist, but this one is news about nothing. Peoples wild fantasies really aren't newsworthy, or worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This article gives Wikipedia a bad name and is a waste of bandwidth.

Does anyone know how to invoke Wikipedia's "Speedy deletion" process?

75.166.172.10 (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you invoked it, I would remove it, and so you'd have to go to AfD, which is a much more protracted process, and one which, I hazard to say, you won't win. However crazy this idea is, it is widely believed by a shockingly large number of people, many of whom call up astronomers asking them whether or not they should kill themselves. The origins of this insanity need to be somewhere on the web, because the web is largely responsible for spreading it in the first place. NASA has actually praised this article multiple times. Serendi^podous 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how this article gives Wikipedia a bad name. It is based on people's beliefs/wild fantasies. Because this is like believing in gods and fairies, those articles are also about people's wild fantasies, but I think that's not a reason to say people's wild fantasies aren't newsworthy and demand that the article be removed from Wikipedia. That's my opinion.--deltabaryon 09:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point of Wikipedia. As long as the article is presented from a neutral point of view and the subject itself is notable, the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. There are some that hold some wild fantasies about the Earth being flat, and there is a pretty good article about these theories and how they've evolved. Wikipedia isn't about fact, it's about presenting what is known about a subject, via citations to reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to delete such information? It maybe far fetched, but it doesn't mean it isn't true?! Why would such a person seek such information and then ask fo it to be deleted?! - I wonder! - It looks like things will change, but for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonescd76 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Collision or near miss

Having reverted an IP's removal of 'collision' I couldn't find a claim for a collision at Zetatalk, but did find [2] which says no collision. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This idea doesn't belong to Zetatalk anymore. Plenty of copycat sites describe it as a collision. Serendi^podous 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But the article attributes it to Nancy Leider, and if she didn't claim a collision, we need to rewrite that bit. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't actually attribute the collision to Nancy; it merely says that the idea originated with her. Serendi^podous 06:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wacky claims

Since when does an encyclopedia include the wacky and scientifically impossible delusions of an obviously ill person, regardless of how many people might claim to have reptilian chips in their heads? I doubt you'll find this in Britannica, Encarta, or anything else other than Uncyclopedia. At the very least, it needs to have a large disclaimer that the subject matter is pure fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.22.37 (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are articles about Reptilians, alien abduction, satanic ritual abuse and creationism, and you could argue that each of those ideas is the product of mental illness. So there's no reason for this not to be included. Many people honestly believe that this will happen, and there needs to be at least one decent discussion on the web. Serendi^podous 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You put forward several points, I'll try to address them. 1) The 'because others are doing it too' argument isn't really a credible excuse for anything. 2) You claim "many people honestly believe" this will happen? Got a source for "many" and for the level of belief? 3) Why does there need to be "one decent discussion on the web" for things derived from the mentally ill, and why do you think it needs to happen in an encyclopedia article on what is supposed to be a verifiable, fact-based website? 4) Why is Wikipedia being made into a discussion forum for wacky fictional conspiracy theories? Why is there no immediate and strong warning at the top of the article that the subject matter is utter fi:::ction?? Why hasn't this been rolled into a section in an article on conspiracy theories? 24.246.22.37 (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't about "others doing it too". If you want to follow that logic, then go and complain on every fringe article on Wikipedia. Fringe articles are allowed on Wikipedia as long as they're notable, and this one certainly is. David Morrison, who runs a NASA public outreach website, has received more than 5000 questions on the topic, and has personally credited this page for dealing with the issue; 44 books have been published about it. This page gets between 3,000 and 10,000 hits a day and there are over 272,000 websites that use the words "Nibiru" or "Planet X" and "2012" in the title. Everything in this article is factual and in no way endorses the ideas put forward by Nancy Lieder. I think the line about Lieder believing she has an implant in her brain goes a long way to discrediting the idea in the eyes of the curious public. Serendi^podous 17:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To GA reviewers

I know this article contains several links to the fringe site ZetaTalk, but since it is about ZetaTalk, that's somewhat unavoidable. Serendi^podous 08:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof

It has been proved that the Russian amateur astronomer Leonid Elenin does not exist as a real person. Leonid Elenin is simply a cover name that is used to satisfy other amateur astronomers. They used this name Leonid Elenin because its actually a code. The fake comet is supposed to be located in the 'LEO' constitaltion and the 'NID' stands for the National Intelligence Department and both make up 'LEONID' Then you have the fake surname and the name given to this fake comet 'Elenin' which is actually an acronym for E=Extinction L=LEVEL E=EVENT N=NEAR I=IMPACT N=NIBURU. The evidence is starting to mount for this conspiracy subject as more and more people begin researching it due to the current body of evidence associated with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.253.210 (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So these great conspirators were smart enough to hide a giant object the size of a brown dwarf from every amateur astronomer on Earth, but stupid enough to make a fake name out of an acronym that gave the entire conspiracy away? Serendi^podous 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I heard that the Russians don't speak English like they do in the movies, but actually secretly speak a language called Russian. Nevard (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

Nancy and Zetas never said about collision with Nibiru but about it's passage near the Earth. There are much more horrible errors in the article. Author should not write about the things he nows nothing about. 178.176.126.187 (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This article doesn't say that Nancy said Nibiru would collide with earth. But many other doomsayers have said just that. Serendi^podous 08:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make a specific request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe this is what is being referred to. About the only thing I can empathise with is the choice of "collision" in the title. While the article goes out of its way to state that Nancy did not predict an outright collision, it is difficult to decide what a better title should be. "Nibiru passage" is too vague; it could be a passage in a book, a passage for a ship, or a passage in a house. What else is there? "Nibiru grazing"? "Nibiru sideswipe"? "Nibiru knocking some fillings loose"? True, it isn't technically a collision, but given what Nancy predicts it will do (and how others have subsequently interpreted it, whether she meant them to or not) it might as well be. Serendi^podous 15:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I've changed the article's title to "Nibiru cataclysm". Given that it took ~1/2 an hour to fix the redirects, I really hope this isn't asked of me again. Serendi^podous 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This article should be added to the category "Eschatology".--140.160.69.153 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

done. Serendi^podous 07:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

so-called "implant"

We had a lady that came into the ER when I was an orderly back in the university days (ah, nostalgia) that also claimed to have an alien implant in her head. Turned out she had a couple of Chiclets® in her hair.  :-) Seriously, though, I see some statements in the archive about how widespread the belief is in this Lieder woman's (ahem) theories is - if you mean widespread geographically, yeah, that's no doubt correct - fringe elements are everywhere. As to how many people we're talking about here, you could probably fit them all into a nice-sized gymnasium - sort of like if you collected all the extremists from all the Star Trek conventions and put them in a room. At least I hope so. I was wondering if this woman has ever been challenged to have a public medical exam to "look" for this implant? Any cites to that effect, and what her answer and/or excuses were? HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not equate belief in Nibiru with belief in Lieder. Most people who believe in Nibiru probably don't know who Lieder is. Very few "sources" on the subject even mention her, because they're smart enough to know it would weaken their case. The current version of the article doesn't make any claims about numbers of believers, simply because no one has really bothered to find out. That said, "Nibiru + 2012" yields 100,000 hits on Youtube alone. Even assuming 1 user for every 10 videos, that's still 10,000 people, and that's just the ones who believe fervently enough to make videos about it. The number of websites is almost 13 million. Again, even assuming 1 user for every 10 hits, that's still 1.3 million people who care enough about this to make a website about it. Multiply that by, say 100 unique hits per user and that's 130 million very scared people. This article alone gets ~4,000 hits per day, and given that that it has remained relatively stable over the last year or so, these are unlikely to be people returning to seek new information. As far as responses to her claims go, there have been several, mostly on usenet before she moved over to godlikeproductions. You can go over to badastronomy.com for examples of the kinds of responses she gives to rational questions. As to that specific question, you'll have to search usenet or godlikeproductions for an answer.Serendi^podous 06:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

3 days of darkness

In 2012 modified versions of comet Elenin 3 days of darkness in September continue. -- Kheider (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with that. Serendi^podous 12:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not either. But I thought it was worth noting on the talk page. This Comet Elenin/Nibiru rumor of blocking out the Sun might pop up every Sept 26-29th[3] just as the Mars seen as large as the full moon does every August. -- Kheider (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

nonsense

This whole article is nonsense and should be deleted. 114.198.5.225 (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Then take it to WP:AFD. Serendi^podous 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also being nonsense is not itself a reason to delete. Wikipedia does cover notable hoxas, conspricy theories, and psuedoscientific topics etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.167.20 (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Name change

In my opinion the name of this article is misleading in that it suggests the event to be a reality. Should it not rather be "Nibiru cataclysm theory"? Robvanvee (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The Nibiru cataclysm is many, many things, but a theory is not one of them. Let's leave that word for concepts worthy of it. Besides, the articles on Xenu, Satanic ritual abuse, the Rapture and countless other baseless concepts don't bother to make such distinctions, so there's no real reason for this article to either.Serendi^podous 06:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"The Nibiru cataclysm is a supposed disastrous encounter between the Earth and a large planetary object"...the article is summed up in the first sentence. Given that it is supposed, if it is not a theory, then what would it be? Please elaborate on the "many, many" things you describe. Perhaps theory is not the right word? Maybe hypothesis or conjecture would be more apt? And article names on Xenu, Satanic ritual abuse and the Rapture might be more accurate with similar distinctions? Your feedback is appreciated Serendipodous|ous! Robvanvee (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that articles like this one should have more specific titles, then you should take it up on a more general forum such as the village pump. Regardless, however, "theory", "hypothesis" and "conjecture" are specific scientific words with specific scientific meanings, and should not be applied to non-scientific concepts like this. Serendi^podous 11:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it fictional?

We WANT to make it fictional otherwise! If truth is... IT WILL KILL ANYONE! Please make it fictional... So no real life examples please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.209.15 (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the product of a deluded mind, so no it isn't "fictional", exactly, but that doesn't mean it's real. The list of names are not "examples", but various objects that have been named as Nibiru when they are not. Serendi^podous 06:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Very biased and lacks factual information.

This article is very one-sided and lacks information. It should have an objective point of view.Deeecup (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

What factual information does it lack? Serendi^podous 09:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nibiru was talk about long before Nancy L. as a UFO or Craft

Check on The Black Book, the Sacred Record of Atum Re by DR MALACHI YORK pages 369-373. York mentioned it was a UFO or craft of many and not a planet but in the shape of a planet. He says some crafts are 4 to 10 times the size of the earth. And some not being able to enter the atmospheric etherean realm because of their size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.199.61 (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What, York as in the Newabian guy? Both York and Lieder drew from Sitchin, so it's not surprising their ideas were similar. Serendi^podous 09:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 December 2012

Change all 'is' into 'was' in the text. Michael007800 (talk) 13:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not as easy to do this with Nibiru as with 2012; Nibiru never was part of 2012, it simply got swept up in the hype. How this will pan I don't know; it already went into hibernation after failing to happen in 2003; it will probably go into hibernation again now. Serendi^podous 14:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.Danger ^{High voltage!} 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sagan/Velikovsky

I removed the quote about the physics of Earth's rotation because while it is entirely correct and reasonable, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus requires EVERY statement and argument to be backed up by a source. We cannot make arguments of our own, no matter how well sourced the premises of the argument are. That would be WP:OR. We need to find reliable sources WP:RS that make this exact argument. Ashmoo (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of WP:OR (emphasis in original):

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

The reference is to scientific rejection of the concept that the Earth will stop rotating... -- Kheider (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand that. But please re-read the last sentence of the quote from the wikpedia policy above. Starting 'To demonstrate that you are not adding OR...'. Pay special attention to the words 'topic of the article'. Ashmoo (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that the information is valid, a note that a more direct citation is preferable is better than deleting it. Finding direct sources for this is difficult enough as it is, don't force us to go gallivanting about the internet looking for sources that probably don't exist. Serendi^podous 10:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

The idea was first put forward in 1995 by Nancy Lieder, founder of the website ZetaTal Please either back it up with valid citation WP:RS or remove it

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. RudolfRed (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Added two reliable sources. Serendi^podous 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

What is its supposed orbital characteristics?

This is never described before we read under "Scientific Rejection": "A planet such as Nibiru would create noticeable effects in the orbits of the outer planets." yes it would, once close enough, but is it supposed to be a transneptunian or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.149.126 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to say, because you have to separate the Nibiru of Nancy Lieder (which is the product of a deranged mind, and so doesn't really need rationalizing) from the Nibiru of Zecharia Sitchin, which at least has a vague scientific rationale, even given Sitchin's complete scientific ignorance. The website Cosmophobia has a nice application of Kepler's laws to Nibiru's supposed orbit, if that helps. Serendi^podous 06:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Planet X / Nibiru speculation

Astronomers have known about Planet X (Nibiru) since the Late 1800s by observing its effects on the orbits of the outer planets. In the late 19th century, two American astronomers, William H. Pickering and Percival Lowell, predicted the size and approximate location of the trans-Neptunian body, which Lowell called Planet X.

If you read the article, you would see that Planet X, as Lowell defined it, is no longer necessary to explain the orbits of the outer planets. Measurements have been refined, and the initial errors corrected.

Planet X research continued throughout the 20th century. NASA Scientists announced its existence in 1987, based on the trajectories of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes.

That may have been speculated about in 1987, but in 2012 most papers on the Pioneer anomaly cite thermal recoil as the cause.

The proof was presented to the world in 1987, in Aviation Week & Space Technology. NASA has since claimed the disturbed trajectories were caused by a 'thermal anomaly'. Anyone with a High School understanding of physics knows with absolute certainty that a thermal anomaly does not affect mass, and therefore would not affect the orbital behavior of a spacecraft. NASA is flat out Lying to the American People!

Care to quote that source? Or provide a link?

It's patently absurd for anyone to claim that Nibiru / Planet X is a hoax invented by Nancy Lieder in 1995, such a claim is preposterous and Laughable, based on a mountain of evidence spanning over a century. Debunker articles posted on Wikipedia as fact are the reason why I have never donated a dime to this site, and as Long as these Lies continue, I will never donate to this site, and I have and will continue to actively discourage others from donating to Wikipedia as well. Read your Bible, see what happens to Liars!

It's rather ironic for someone who believes in Zecharia Sitchin's alien god planet to be citing the Bible.

Huge List of Planet X Stories Dating Back to the 50s!

_______________________________________

1950-1991 (overlong list commented out)

_______________________________

All of these predate Myles Standish's Voyager 2 measurements in 1992, which removed the need for Lowell's Planet X. And so are out of date.

_______________________________

1992-2000 (overlong list commented out) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.235.12 (talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

_________________________________

As for the rest, well, there has always been speculation about a potential planet beyond Neptune. Read that article. But that doesn't mean it's going to hit us. Do you have any evidence that this planet is going to hit us in any conceivable amount of time? Serendi^podous 22:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Scientific evidence of ancient giant comet collision

NASA has found evidence of giant [[4][asteroid hitting earth 3.26Bn(!) years ago]]. Correlates perfectly with Nibiru hitting the Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenK71 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It does? Who says Nibiru hit the earth then? Sitchin never made such a claim. Anyway, this page is for discussion of the article, not of Nibiru. And anything in the article needs to be sourced from sources meeting our criteria at WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Many large protoplanets/planetesimals crashed into Earth during the first billion years of the Solar System. -- Kheider (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal/replacement of "Bad Astronomy" as an external link

The following is what I sent to a moderator Re: this issue- Here is what Bad Astronomy says about 'unusual weather patterns': "First off, surprise! The weather isn't all that weird. We are coming off of an El Nino, which is a weather pattern that disrupts climates across the world. Also, we are now into springtime, when things like tornadoes are common. Seeing tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma is not only not unusual, but is expected!...'Conclusion: the weather isn't any weirder than it usually is at the end of an El Nino, so the claims of weird weather are wrong.'"

What?! His website is hyper-linked as a way to introduce a scientific perspective to the wiki. Instead, it is comically implying climate change isn't real. I was told he writes against "climate change denial". Great! However, this article puts him along with the deniers. If Bad Astronomy was supposed to represent scientific consensus (which is what it seems like was intended), then the logical approach here would be to either remove this article that encourages climate denial, or replace it with another site that doesn't misguide readers into thinking that weather patterns aren't unusual. (This is unequivocally bad science, & a bad representation of it). Increasing frequency of extreme El Niño events due to greenhouse warming. Also, Tornadoes forming in unpredictable manners. Clearly, Phil has conflated debunking Planet X with bad science (i.e. climate change denial). Let me be clear-- I know that Phil writes against climate change denial. Unfortunately in this instance when he talks about weather patterns he is advocating bad science. Its probably an honest mistake. So lets rectify this then.

Since Serendipidous and Khedeir are faithfully devoted to this page, I will wait to hear from them before I go ahead and remove Bad Astronomy as an external link thank you & Merry Xmas :) Emphatik (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Phil Plait is NOT claiming that climate change is not real. In fact here he is denouncing climate change denial. And here. He's talking about short-term weather patterns, which are not necessarily tied to climate change. The weather of one El Nino has nothing to do with the total number of El Ninos, any more than how good one meal tastes has anything to do with how many times you eat. Serendi^podous 16:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Like I said earlier I am aware that Phil Plait talks against climate denial & have read his articles written for slate. #1) No one is suggesting that the weather of one particular El Nino is affecting the total number of El Ninos. I trust you read the links I provided. What scientific consensus claims is that global warming (not one El Nino) is affecting the total number of EXTREME (let me repeat, extreme) El Ninos. Therefore, when people notice unusually extreme occurrences of El Nino it is because of climate change. So when he says that "the weather isn't all that weird. We are coming off of an El Nino" this is patently false, because El Nino has indeed gotten more erratic--therby erratically impacting short term weather. At risk of repeating this ad nauseam, climate change has affected the erratic nature of short term weather patterns. Its influence on El Nino is just one illustration. #2) Here is what he says Re: tornadoes, "Also, we are now into springtime, when things like tornadoes are common". It is true tornadoes are common. Again I will however refer you to the 2nd link I provided in the first post. Here is what a climate researcher says "Although the climate does not appear to be making tornadoes more frequent, when they come, they come in bunches," says Elsner. "So you'll see fewer days in which you're threatened by tornadoes, but when you are, the threat will be greater". Serendipodous, you have helped me make my point here. Indeed tornado statistics dont necessarily show a defined uptick, rather they've shown a variability in short-term weather patterns. Bunching up more often when they do occur. #3) Lastly, Here is how he opens his refutation Re:weather fluctuations-- "Another big claim is that there has been a lot of unusual weather going on; tornadoes, droughts, storms, etc.". And what does he pin the unusual tornadoes, droughts, storms on? El Nino. This is a joke. A joke that isn't funny. Do you see any scientist going around saying that the unusual short-term weather patterns we have witnessed so far is within reasonable expectations of El Nino's influence? Let me be clear about my point. He is saying the erratic (short term) weather patterns are normal, because they fall within the normal range of how El Nino has historically retarded the weather. While El Nino does make short term weather erratic, that is not the ROOT CAUSE as to why we have experienced erratic short term weather as we have till now. And no, the erratic nature of short-term weather experienced does not fall within the range of how El Nino has historically influenced short term weather. Phil might write against climate denial, but this article actually betrays current scientific consensus. This work must be either taken down or replaced. Else you risk supporting work that is OUTDATED science! That the rest of Phil's work speaks against climate change denial doesn't rectify the fact that this particular article butchers climate change science. We must value facts first--not you, him or me.

cheers :) Emphatik (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what Phil says: "First off, surprise! The weather isn't all that weird". But what science is saying (as I mentioned earlier) is that the short term weather during an El Nino is indeed weird

Again, this is about climate, not weather. One bad El Nino is not about climate change. Several bad ones are. Your link is about future El Ninos. And given that the timescale of Planet X was over months and years, not decades, it has little to no relevance. Serendi^podous 18:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You've managed to completely miss the point yet again. Im not saying one bad El Nino is representative of all of climate change. I (along with all scientists) am/are saying climate change IS causing occurrences of erratic weather patterns, including El Nino. Therefore, when you see a very bad El Nino it IS because of climate change. How can you not understand this?

Hold on, are you suggesting like Phil "a lot of unusual weather going on; tornadoes, droughts, storms, etc" is because of one bad El Nino? Haha, you're funny. Climate change IS causing erratic El Nino to be erratic. One erratic El Nino here, another bad El Nino there, and another there. This IS because of climate change, not because it just happens to be one bad El Nino.

To refute what you said-- Yes We can actually say one bad El Nino is about climate change. How? Because global warming is affecting the oceans and atmosphere. So one bad El Nino does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs dependent on atmospheric conditions, which are AFFECTED by CLIMATE CHANGE.

I am amazed at how trigger happy you've been to correct my edits, while being incapable of understanding how climate affects weather. Since you dont seem to quite grasp how this works, I will go ahead and remove Bad Astronomy as an external link. You can go ahead and find a more suitable article that is coherent with scientific consensus to replace it with. We will call this a compromise. cheers Emphatik (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S: the Planet X timescale has indeed been for decades, not just some months or years. Nancy has been postulating it for 2 decades now. And her claim is that it has been affecting climate and weather for more than a decade now (not some months or years). You've just illustrated to me that you are not even well aware of the premise of this article.Emphatik (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Phil Plait's site was written in the years around 2001 to counter Nancy Lieder's initial claims of Nibiru arriving in 2003. The extension to 2012 and beyond had nothing to do with Nancy, who has wisely kept her mouth shut about future dates. The irony of all this is that your intention is not to discredit Plait; your intention is to post a fairy tale link about pole shift, a phenomenon that is scientifically nonsensical. Serendi^podous 19:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know that Phil Plait's site is 13 years old; and therefore completely out of touch with climate change. You are right in suggesting that what Nancy has suggested does not have scientific consensus. But her claim is detailed as if its, like you say, a "fairytale". However, Phil's refutation is not in the backdrop of a conspiracy theory. Phil is attempting to represent science that is in line with the scientific community's consensus. Nancy isn't. Are there not other conspiracy theories and fairy tales and myths detailed in wikipedia. When any one of them are refuted using science, the science is up-to-date. If a refutation is presented in the name of science, then it must be entirely in line with our current scientific understanding. However, if something is claimed in the backdrop of conspiracy theories, they are by their very nature conspiratorial, and out of line with scientific consensus. I trust you understand the difference. Regardless of intentions, different sides of an argument must be allowed an honest elaboration, but ALSO BE COMPLETELY CONCURRENT WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELD. This is actually why science trumps. You present evidence that is complete.

Like I said earlier, once I delete Bad Astronomy as an external link, you may go ahead and replace it with a link that is more current. It honestly shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes to find a suitable replacement. cheers. Enjoy your Christmas Emphatik (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

This Nibiru article is about the unscientific belief / fear of an object that has never been seen by reputable astronomers and that no one can calculate celestial coordinates of. The Planet X article is about theoretical planets that had/have scientific support for their possible existence. I see no problem with a link to Phil Plait's page. When Jupiter comes to opposition each year, our weather does not notably change. -- Kheider (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Kheider. (I equated Planet X to be the one & same as Nibiru mentioned in this wiki. Sorry about that). Now not to be pedantic, but the primary theme of this article is Nibiru (not the unscientific belief that it is--that is only part of the entire article). However, I do agree with you that it is unscientific belief & that it cant be calculated by reputable astronomers. I have never objected these claims by Phil. But while debunking he also used OUTDATED climate change science. Read it and you'll laugh. Which is why I have recommended over & over if nothing else, lets replace Phil's link with anything that doesn't dabble in bad climate change science. (What I'm suggesting is GOOD science). You can't say Phil is representing the scientific point of view, when he's muddied his analysis with antiquated climate change science. What say you replace his link with one that only deals with the astronomy of Nibiru? (If anything, this would make the case that Nibiru is unscientific even stronger, because we would discard Phil's outdated understanding of climate change from 2001) You & Serendipodous were quick to undo my edits. Why not show that same enthusiasm for this reasonable (actually, more scientific) compromise I propose? cheers. Enjoy your Christmas :) Emphatik (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Phil's link is more than adequate as there is no scientific evidence to support Nibiru. If you dislike the link so much you can always suggest a replace on this talk page. -- Kheider (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please reread what you've written. You just said a page that employs bad climate change science is "adequate". And then you said because outside of Phil's article we have no proof of Nibiru, therefore Phil's erroneous understanding of climate change from 2001 is right? or irrelevant? Either way you've just made the case that you're willing to overlook scientific lapses in an argument that is presented as a scientific critique. Let me repeat, this article is about Nibiru. There are sides that make claims about it, and then they are refuted. When refuting them you dont accommodate scientific lapses. You claim Nibiru should be approached scientifically, yet are willing to accommodate bad science? This is laughable Emphatik (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So far all you have done is add a spam link to a pole shift website and try to remove a link to Phil Plait that does not speak well of Nancy Lieder. -- Kheider (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have said you may go ahead and replace the scientific refutation with a link that is more complete. And not once do you even care that the current refutation uses bad climate change science to make a point. So my compromise is if you like the current link replace it with another that uses the good refutation it uses, while avoiding bad climate change science.Emphatik (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Resolved as KEEP in the Talk:Nibiru_cataclysm#Phil_Plait section. -- Kheider (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Phil Plait

User:Emphatik has suggested that Phil Plait's site be removed from this page, as his claims supposedly refute climate change. The site makes no overt claims of climate change denial, and indeed Phil Plait is an active opponent of such claims. However, Emphatik argues that the claims made against this pseudoscientific claim constitute climate change denial. Serendi^podous 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)e de

I just want to make my point of view clear. I'm not saying Phil Plait is a climate denier. (I'm well aware of his stance on accepting climate change). I'm saying that dead link] his article linked to this wiki (that was written in 2001!) does not represent climate change science & is indeed climate change denial. I have not said the claims made against Planet X hypothesis is climate change denial. I have said that his argument on climate change has no standing as it is written in 2001 and therefore out of date. Since his article misrepresents current climate change science & was written in 2001, there must be a better alternative to it. thanks Emphatik (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the links. There is nothing about climate or weather in the links in question, this article is not about climate or weather, and it is irrelevant whether the author of the links has or had a valid discussion of climate or weather on some other site that we are not linking. This all has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this article. So in the absence of anything resembling an actual logical argument for removing the links, we should keep them. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey David. Thanks for your response. What you said is not true at all. This has everything to do with weather/climate. More importantly the author's (Phil Plait's) argument is predicated on weather/ climate, as well. This is the Bad Astronomy external link attached to the wiki (it is a homepage). However , from the homepage this is where Phil Plait actually does his critique of the Planet X theory:- The Planet X scientific arguments in a nutshell , (that hypertext is verbatim). The 5th issue he addresses is erratic weather in relation to Planet X. But wait a minute if the topic of this wiki (i.e. Planet X/Nibiru) doesn't have anything to do with climate or weather, then why is Phil Plait addressing erratic weather in relation to Planet X?

You will notice that the first line of this wiki article says that the Nibiru cataclysm is a supposed collision or NEAR-MISS with earth. One of the suppositions of the Planet X theroy is that erratic weather patterns would occur as a precursor to the passing by of a hypothetical planet (i.e. Planet X). And this is why Phil goes onto debunk erratic weather as a precursor to the Planet X passage. He says so himself in the article where he does the real debunking (i.e. the second link I've provided). So you see, this does indeed have everything to do with climate and weather. I want to be perfectly clear-- I am not claiming as a fact, that this so-called Planet X can affect weather. But we must make sure the refutations are complete. Right? Since Bad Astronomy is debunking the hypothetical presence of a "Planet X" by using frankly outdated climate/weather science. Then that is a big hole in its approach.

I will use an analogy from your field. Imagine if you ask me to make a program that is supposed to perform a list of tasks for your company. I write the code for the program, but it fails miserably in one of the tasks. Should this program not be either thrown or replaced? A scientific refutation should be correct and complete in all the areas it tackles. Else it should not wade into that area. Phil has, & done so miserably with respect to climate/weather science. Perhaps he could fix it I'm sure. Or Serendipodous|ous could find an apt replacement in under 10 minutes. But right now the Bad Astronomy website uses very bad scientific representation of climate change science to debunk Planet X. thanks. Enjoy your christmas :) Emphatik (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the links. This is utterly ridiculous. It amounts to disruptive editing. One allows for a certain amount of licence in dealing with beyond-fringe tedious trash, but the date of the references given is utterly irrelevant in this context, and in line with what David Eppstein rightly said, neither this article nor the citations nor the views of the cited authors, have a blind bit to do with climate change or stability, and it would make no difference to the relevance of the citations in this article if they did. I reckon that this RFC amounts to feeding the trolls and that it should be shut down. And if anyone boldly removes or replaces those refs in the article, I recommend blocking for trolling or disruptive editing or whatever the authorities consider to be the appropriate terminology. Wasting our time is what it amounts to. JonRichfield (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea, but people tend to treat trolls with kid gloves these days. Dr K even called Empathik's edit warring "good faith". Serendi^podous 10:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

OK Did you guys not read the linked article I showed you? Nevermind. Yet again I will say, Phil's refutations I dont have a problem with--except one. The one where he uses outdated understanding of climate change science. I have suggested over and over--just replace the link with another that only uses astronomical inquiry. This way we can avoid the outdated climate change science from 2001 as being representative of current science. Emphatik (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: Please dont use ad hominem attacks. It does not belong here. thank you Emphatik (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC) 5th criterion Phil's critique uses is outdated climate change understanding Emphatik (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep the link. The linked piece does not make any claims about the validity of climate change. It's talking about short term weather patterns. It takes a lot of effort to make a such strained and tenuous connection to climate change denial. So I don't see how it invalidates the accuracy of the rest of that site as a scientific refutation of the claims made by the Nibiru believers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Torchiest. We seem to be going in circles here. Yes he is dealing in short term weather patterns. But he is using El Nino as the reason for the erratic short term weather pattern & not Global warming (which is whats causing el nino to be erratic). Remember his article is 13 years old. Given that one of the supposition of the Nibiru/Planet X theory is erratic weather, he's therefore muddied up the "erratic weather" aspect of the argument. This is why I proposed a reasonable compromise of atleast replacing it with a link that only provides astronomical refutations (without outdated science). Or if erratic weather is discussed it should be in the backdrop of of our current understanding of global warming (which is causing erratic short term weather, like i said earlier). Thank you for your response, you're one of the few that hasn't resorted to ad hominem attacks. cheers. Enjoy your Xmas :)Emphatik (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Emphatik (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We are going around in circles here because no one agrees with you. Please stop now. Serendi^podous 18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I mentioned somewhere above that I did. cheersEmphatik (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In order to make sure everyone's clear. I'm content with the consensus & as mentioned earlier am actually looking for further refutation from NASA (some good ones are already cited below) & will discuss ADDing them to the already existing list of external links. This way a link from NASA is added along with the other links you're happy with. Win-win for everyone. cheers Emphatik (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Emphatik

I already see 3 strikes against Emphatik:

• 1. He wanted to add a spam link to a Poleshift website that Lieder posts on.
• 2. He wanted to remove a link to Phil Plait that speaks poorly of Lieder.
• 3. He wants to remove (and did so) a dead link] referenced statement that demonstrates that Lieder is likely off her rocker about much more than just Nibiru.
  -- Kheider (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired of these character attacks. The first 2 I already showed was in good faith & have explained the misunderstanding in the talk page & to a mod. The third I illustrated well, why it was not in keeping with WP:ALIVE. (And in fact the way you explain here, are clearly showing you dont want to maintain a neutral point of view). I have already explained the intent to display "Nancy is likely off her rocker" (as you say), is already displayed unequivocally by showing that she claims to have implants in her head, the world ended in 2003, the world will stop rotation, etc. etc. All these ludicrous claims are referenced in the wiki as well. So you have what you want. But lets not deal with character assassinations that are not in keeping with WP:ALIVE. And to be fair, I have helped out in going over the cited sites to make sure they were aptly titled in accordance with scientific consensus. Please stop vilifying me. ty.Emphatik (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You are a rogue editor with no consensus for your content removal based on wp:BLP and your personal interpretations of what is a reliable source and NPOV. -- Kheider (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. Wiki states no one owns an article & should be keeping with its policies. I've listed the WP:ALIVE numerous times. It is not a personal interpretation. It is wiki's objective interpretation. cheers Emphatik (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You have received no support for your interpretations of this article. Your content removal should be reverted until a real consensus is achieved. Admin Only locked the article letting you get away with 9 reverts to the page on 11/14 December against consensus of other editors. You seem to have joined Wikipedia to promote Lieder's agenda. -- Kheider (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)