271:
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that making this a redirect to the 2012 article is probably the best way to go. It would be easier to keep an eye on one article on all these theories than a bunch of little articles. The other option as I see it is to make this very strictly on just
230:
I think for reporting claims made by Lieder or others on or about ZetaTalk, it is OK to use ZetaTalk as a source. My guess is the refutations section would be much better referenced than the claims made part. Since this seems to be tied into the Mayan 2012 stuff, making this part of a larger article
234:
As for ways to defuse ridiculous claims, I think putting several mutually contradictory claims in one article helps show their goofiness. The history of the website (2003, no 2010, no 2012, it is all white lies) helps t00. There are lots of reliable refutation sources out there - see the FAQs at
293:
I see your point there, and under other circumstances I would certainly do that. But there are a number of hiccups in trying to do that with this particular theory, the biggest of which is that it really doesn't have anything to do with 2012; it just became associated with 2012 because someone
205:. My guess is that one way to deal with this article would be to trim it down so it is just about the webpage, and put a notice pointing to the 2012 Doomsday prediction article at the top of page - currently it is in the section of the web page's ideas and a see also (another MOS issue).
121:
I've listed this article for peer review because, while it began merely as a document of one rather peculiar internet phenomenon, in recent years that phenomenon has grown out of all control and taken on a life of its own (As an example, Googling "Nibiru" and "2012" produces
126:). As the 2012 date nears, this page will only become more important. So should it be renamed? If so to what? How do I go about defusing some of the more ridiculous claims without violating NPOV or NOR? And what constitutes a reliable source in this situation?
294:
decided it should be. And also, this theory as picked up so many different associations (from Planet X to Eris to Nibiru), that dealing with each individually requires some care; so I daren't remove any info from this page.
272:
the website and its history and then pruning all the extraneous stuff - if applied strictly this would probably leave only a stub on just the website, with links to the 2012 article and perhaps see alsos. Just my two cents,
384:
354:
The pole shifts causing extinction is there main premise and helping ppl to maximize human potential for the betterment of mankind before it's to late is there premise
227:
or something similar, then have a section on ZetaTalk, a section on
Hercolubus, a section on the Project Camelot website, etc. followed by debunkers and their evidence.
188:
The references are a mess - most of them are to ZetaTalk itself, not to independent third-party sources. I agree that most of the current refs do not seem to meet
209:
110:
247:
I will keep thinking about this problem. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at
178:, which is a great article and says Planet X cannot exist, but makes no mention of these kind of modern odd theories. Similarly Wormwood links to
355:
341:
301:
136:
185:
There are a lot of short paragraphs (one or two sentences) that need to be combined with others for improved flow, or perhaps expanded.
201:
I think the main problem with the article is that most of it is not about the ZetaTalk webpage itself, but rather on aspects of the
77:
224:
389:
73:
192:
and there is not sufficient information given for several refs (current ref 11 has no publisher and seems to in no way meet
248:
220:
240:
171:
58:
50:
123:
202:
152:: Wow, what a can of worms. Thanks for working on this - here are some ideas and suggestions for improvement.
23:
359:
345:
213:
303:
138:
102:
175:
17:
319:
277:
256:
363:
349:
329:
309:
287:
266:
144:
296:
131:
160:
179:
236:
166:
The article is overlinked in places, or has links to dabs - Nibiru is linked to the dab
315:
273:
252:
378:
106:
66:
219:
Perhaps another way to go with this would be to move this article to something like
193:
189:
156:
There are lots of MOS issues with the article (in addition to the other problems).
239:
web site, for one. CNN had article on 2012 that refutes the claims too - see
314:
OK. I see your point but was hoping to simplify things by a merge. Oh well.
43:
212:, There are some serious books that mention the website briefly - see
167:
182:, which is an OK article, but again makes no mention of this theory.
174:(itself a redirect) in just the lead. Planet X is linked to the FA
159:
There are many names bolded in the lead that should not be - see
243:. Also realize that nothing would dissuade some true believers.
340:
From what I can tell more or less ,I'll use there own words,
334:
From what I can tell more or less ,I'll use there own words,
208:
The New York Times mentioned ZetaTalk briefly in 1997 - see
105:
review of the article for issues relating to grammar and
92:
85:
54:
385:Peer review pages with semiautomated peer reviews
214:this in "Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases"
24:Knowledge:Peer review/Nibiru collision/archive1
8:
251:(which is how I found this article). Yours,
225:2012 Doomsday predictions in popular culture
118:This peer review discussion has been closed.
101:A script has been used to generate a semi-
337:The fight the bad service to self aliens
7:
221:2012 Doomsday predictions on the web
31:
109:style; it can be found on the
1:
249:Knowledge:Peer review/backlog
231:might be easier to treat too.
237:NASA's Ask an Astrobiologist
172:Nibiru (hypothetical planet)
406:
364:11:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
350:11:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
330:03:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
310:12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
288:12:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
267:04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
145:08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
111:automated peer review page
203:2012 Doomsday prediction
176:Planets beyond Neptune
390:May 2009 peer reviews
18:Knowledge:Peer review
150:Ruhrfisch comments
326:
284:
263:
93:Watch peer review
22:(Redirected from
397:
324:
306:
299:
282:
261:
141:
134:
90:
81:
62:
27:
405:
404:
400:
399:
398:
396:
395:
394:
375:
374:
323:
304:
297:
281:
260:
180:Wormwood (star)
139:
132:
113:for April 2009.
96:
71:
48:
42:
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
403:
401:
393:
392:
387:
377:
376:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
356:24.220.171.167
342:24.220.171.167
338:
335:
320:
278:
257:
245:
244:
232:
228:
217:
206:
199:
198:
197:
186:
183:
164:
120:
115:
114:
98:
97:
95:
41:
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
402:
391:
388:
386:
383:
382:
380:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
333:
332:
331:
328:
327:
317:
313:
312:
311:
308:
307:
302:
300:
292:
291:
290:
289:
286:
285:
275:
269:
268:
265:
264:
254:
250:
242:
238:
233:
229:
226:
222:
218:
215:
211:
207:
204:
200:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
158:
157:
155:
154:
153:
151:
147:
146:
143:
142:
137:
135:
127:
125:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
94:
89:
88:
84:
79:
75:
70:
69:
65:
60:
56:
52:
47:
46:
40:
39:
36:
33:
25:
19:
318:
295:
276:
270:
255:
246:
149:
148:
130:
128:
124:444,000 hits
117:
116:
86:
82:
68:Article talk
67:
63:
44:
34:
55:visual edit
379:Categories
161:WP:ITALICS
322:<: -->
316:Ruhrfisch
280:<: -->
274:Ruhrfisch
259:<: -->
253:Ruhrfisch
103:automated
129:Thanks,
35:ZetaTalk
298:Serendi
170:and to
133:Serendi
78:history
59:history
45:Article
168:Nibiru
321:: -->
279:: -->
258:: -->
194:WP:RS
190:WP:RS
107:house
87:Watch
16:<
360:talk
346:talk
241:here
210:here
74:edit
51:edit
305:ous
223:or
140:ous
381::
362:)
348:)
196:).
91:•
76:|
57:|
53:|
358:(
344:(
325:°
283:°
262:°
216:.
163:.
83:·
80:)
72:(
64:·
61:)
49:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.