Talk:Anunnaki

Comically weak article

To anyone worth their salt, the Sumerians were the clearly a civilization of the first rank and wrote painstaking account of their genesis of their origins and history. The Annunaki are constantly referenced in those writings, to such an extent that the Sumerians appear as bystanders to much of the histories. Yet this article makes them - the Annunaki - appear as guest stars in a long-running sitcom.Proof Reader (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Dr malachi Z York has Authored many books in depth (Please examine as his history is based on western literature which is wrong many works from the middle east Far outdate what he used as a guide to his books.The fact that people dont put the time in to look at true middle eastern history is insulting. on this subject about the anunnaqi, anunnagi and done extensive research on the subject of sumerian deities and complied 100's of books back up by facts and evidence that can be check out. Dr Malachi Z york is the leading Authority on the subject of the Anunnagi.

I've removed the npov dispute from this article. It looks to me like authors have been trying to make the article less biased and I don't see anything that is inherently one sided. The ancient astronaut stuff is all treated fairly, explained as theories. I think this line is a bit pejoritive

These claims, like all ancient astronaut theories, are generally considered fantasy to some and fascinating speculation to others.

It could be should be changed to something like beliefs instead of fantasies but that one sentence doesn't really warrant a whole npov tag. If anyone still feels that this article is one sided, leave a msg on my talk page and we can make it better :) TitaniumDreads 15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried to take a less credulous tone, here. I don't think I went overboard, but it's hard to be sure.

In particular, the "missing link" bit is a common misconception: human evolution is actually fairly well documented, but it's always possible, no matter how many ancestors and fossils are found, to claim that the connection between any two of them is missing. Anyone taking this approach might do better to assert that chimpanzees were created by aliens--there's no recent fossil record for chimps. Vicki Rosenzweig 19:29, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Is there any real historical matter here or is this all the work of a modern writer? See also Anu with the same question. Rmhermen 01:51, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

---

"However, there were very influential clandestine organizations that took Sitchin’s work much more seriously.

"Ever since at least 1947, US based clandestine organizations as MJ12 have been engaged in the reverse engineering of downed ET spacecraft, and communicating with different ET races. Even more perplexing for clandestine organizations, was the idea that this advanced race could one day return to the Earth and again interact with humanity as they did in the remote past.

"It is very likely that various intelligence gathering efforts confirmed the validity of some if not most of Sitchin’s hypotheses. US and European clandestine organizations would undoubtedly have made it a top priority to gain access to these ancient ET sites in southern Iraq to learn about the advanced technology used by the Anunnaki. Furthermore, they would have been interested in learning more about the purported home world of the Anunnaki in case it did indeed return to the vicinity of the solar system in the near future."

I deleted the above paragraphs from as I believe they fail the NPOV test and lack scholarly value.

There are too many missing references, details and evidences to support the statements. For example, such statements as "very influential clandestine organizations". Which organizations? What evidence supports the alleged activities? The actual role, purpose and existence of MJ-12 is widely disputed as is the existence of "downed ET spacecraft".

"It is very likely...". Is it? According to what authority and credentials? Sources? Evidences?

"... ancient ET sites..." what evidence suggests there are ancient ET sites? Which mainstream authorities accept this existence of ET sites in southern Iraq?

Most of these paragraphs are written as though the author already accepts the conclusions of Sitchin prima facie whereas many of the statements are very debatable commonly disputed by mainstream scholars more learned in the fields of ancient history and languages.

I also cleaned up some of the biases in the text and, in my opinion, slightly improved the flow making it more readable, but I still think a great deal more work needs to go into this article to reflect the variety of views that exist on this topic (i.e. it is not just Sitchin who writes on Anunnaki!) 80.195.186.192 20:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

The following quote is poorly written and based on some rather far-fetched and unsubstatiated premises. I doubt that there will ever be a suitable citation that will verify the statements and so I have deleted it. I suspect that this article has in the past (and will probably be again) edited by followers of the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis attempting to use this page to subtley promote such ideas (either conciously or unconciously). Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for such activities. Please be careful to avoid using such non-neutral and unscholarly language on this page or you will risk damaging the credibility of the Wikipedia project. If a hypothesis or unsubstantiated idea is being presented it should be presented as such using appropriate language (for example, "It is believed by followers of the X hypothesis that..." and so on. Thank you.

Annunakis are depicted with wings which implies, that they came flying from other planets such as Planet X or Nibiru 3678 years ago in Iraq through the Ashtar Stargate which Americans now must protect until year 2012 waiting for extra-terrestrials to arrive again through the Ashtar (Star) gate in Iraq.

80.195.186.192 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

UFOlogy and translations

So, does anyone who knows something about cuneiform script care to comment on the translations? I don't know enough to say for sure, but I suspect (based on searches in the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary) that the symbols for anu, na, and ki are quite different to those used to write Anunnaki, and so the UFOlogist theory on the translation is entirely wrongheaded. —E. Underwood 19:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A simple report of the Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary entries for anu, na, and ki without drawing extensive conclusions might restore balance. --Wetman 19:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mention

I think a mention of the astronaut stuff might be fair here, but the details need to go somewhere else. An overabundance of such material makes the article a farce. --DanielCD 16:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  I 100% agree with this. I am trying to write an article about this conspiracy theory. I often look at Wikipedia before doing more thorough research to get an idea of what specifically I want to focus on,
and I was pretty shocked that there was no information on this page, especially since reading the Talk page suggests there was at one time. Considering how many pages have surprising sections 

on controversies or conspiracy theories, I would never have expected not to find that here. -Unregistered User

Reptilian?

I've heard that the anunnaki were reptilian in nature, according to the sumerian tablets. Is this true?

No. More reading, less "listening". --Wetman 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Reptilians were an alien race which the Anunnaki has created much later, during the time that they constructed the Great Pyramid. That's according to various works, including those by symbolist Michael Tsarion. I am also interested to determine what the Anunnaki (aliens) really looked like. They were called "Serpent Gods", their offspring "Sons of the Serpent." The Reptilians came much later as a perfect worker class, and they are remembered in the forms of 'dragons' and 'beasts'. There is a dispute over whether or not they still exist (underground.) Neurolanis (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The following may be how the anunnaki-reptillian theory originated. ---- The anunnaki's great grandparents are Lahmu and Lahamu, who were sometimes depicted in Sumerican art as snakes/serpents. The anunnaki's great great grandparents are Apsu and Tiamat. Tiamat was depicted once in ancient art as a dragon. Tiamat also gave birth to other snake/dragon monsters too, who warred against the gods. Logically, if the anunnaki are decended from gods who could take the form of snakes, then they should be snakes or part-snake too. Also, at least three lizard-man hybrid or snake-man statues were excavated from Eridu and Ur, dating from the Ubaid period (5th millenium B.C.). [1] This ancient find also fuels the theory. The word 'anu-nna-ki' contains the words Anu and Ki, the parents of the anunnaki. Mabey the word means 'the children of Anu and Ki' and therefore of royal blood, as Anu & Ki were the sky and earth gods, and therefore royalty.76.93.80.45 (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

"According to the sumerians"

Twice in a cursory overview of this article I see claims that the speculative theories are sumerian in origin. This is simply absurd. Trying to keep NPOV is one thing, but "Ananaki is ancient Sumerian word for Extra Terrestrials" and "According to Sumerian mythology the Anu came to earth and created a slave race, humans, by bonding their genetic material with that of homoerectus" are incorrect. According to the speculative theories this is what happened, however to say that sumerians had a concept of extraterrestrials, let alone an understanding of what homo erectus is, is absurd! Thanatosimii 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the knowledge of "genetic material." - Cyborg Ninja 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

if that is what the tables say when translated than who are you to argue with it? Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since they don't, it shouldn't be here.Doug Weller (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

they don't? what does your translation say?Cheesecake42 (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what you want a translation of and I'll get it for you, but you've got to be specific, not just 'the one that mentions ETs because there isn't one).Doug Weller (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

anything that mentions the anunnaki Cheesecake42 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's still a big, relatively non-specific request, but here: [2]

and [3] and try to get hold of Kramer [4] and there is this faq [5].--Doug Weller (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Text removed from Article

I removed this section of the text, as it seems to be improperly written, for a wikipedia article.--Sp. Furius Fusus 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(EDIT: It is commonly asserted in internet realms that the Anunnaki flooded the earth in an attempt to wipe out the humans. This is not what the cuneiform text translated according to Sitchin. They did, however, fail to warn the humans of a coming deluge so that humans could attempt to save themselves. This decision was not universally agreed upon by the Anunnaki ruling elite. One of them did warn a human and his family, and even instructed him to build a ship to house animals and seeds of earth to preserve them from the cataclysm. Remember Noah from the bible version of the flood story? Sitchen has translated a very similar story and details it in several of his books.)

Jon Gress' movie

Is the movie coming out any time soon, does anyone know? I have tried googling and looking around but wasn't able to find any information on how that movie project is progressing. I am talking about the movie he is making called 1Anunnaki. 62.16.188.173 12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ''

Celestial poles

There's a reference in the article about two gods who are related to the celestial poles. How could the Sumerians have known about their existence? Can anybody clear this up? - Cyborg Ninja 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Creation Myth?

Who is the judge of whether the story is a myth or real? The same people currently trying to render Jesus as a myth too? There is more evidence for why evolution theory is a myth than there is for whether its reality or not. I don't see people tagging evolution as a myth, even though there is no evidence for it. Suddenly a monkey over a 100000 years went from 23 to 24 genomes, every day he evolved to 23.000001 genomes, 23.000002 genomes and so on until 23.9999999, and suddenly and magically, he evolved into 24 genomes! Lol, unfortunately, genomes are whole, either 23, or 24, no floating points...... okay, so this is evolution theory, 20000 bc, at 11.59pm man was a monkey and had 23 genomes, suddenly at 00:01am he magically evolved one more genome in 2 minutes.... due to this pressure for the extra genome to come from the so acidic environment. Man evolved from the monkey, but its funny, the same monkey we were supposed to evolve from has stayed the same for the last 7000 years lol and they want us to beleive we evolved lol... couple of hundred years ago, they swore the sun went around the earth! If you beleive in evolution, you have watched too much zizi tv. lol Please take away the "myth" part, you don't know whether its true or not, and there is no easy way of proofing it.... a myth is only a myth if it can be proven to be a myth. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've quite grasped the concepts you have such forthright views on, 'lol'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsimaja (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, there are tons of ancient evidence to prove they were real. They were not spirits though. Neurolanis (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, this is the standard terminology. Evolution is a basic part of science (againh like it or not) and that again is the standard terminology. (And anyone who thinks man evolved from a monkey has no business attacking evolution since they don't know anything about it).

More relevantly, the Wikipedia article on Myth says "Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false. It should be known that myths have historical basis." -- it's a short article, it might help to read it. --Doug Weller (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but even if you rephrase it to "humans have a common ancestor with apes", this still boils down to humans evolving from a monkey (like it or not). And as it can't be demonstrated or tested evolution isn't part of science either no matter how loud some academics are whining about it. So back to the subject, wouldn't the Anunnaki fall under "creation myth"? --41.132.163.152 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You clearly know nothing of evolution. Evolution has been clearly demonstrated: maize and dogs, for instance, wouldn't exist if not for evolution (from teosinte and wolves), and evolution is demonstrated every day as certain members of a species with unfit traits die off (for example, members of a moth species that were mottled brown instead of black did well in England's forests as they could hide on tree bark from birds, but when the trees were cut down the black individuals began to dominate as birds were catching the brown ones more often. True story, forget source). You creationists really shouldn't argue about evolution until you've actually thoroughly read up on the theory, every word you type is sheer ridiculousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.42.244 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've heard/read about that species of moths, but i don't think that they are proof of Evolution. They didn't "evolve" they simply "adapted" to their new environment. :)

You don't prove theories, but they are evidence of evolution. Adaption is part of evolution. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Evolution, as has been described over the years, was proven wrong when we were able to look into DNA. The chromosomes are different between Homo Erectus and humans, which science had claimed they came from. That is a proven fact, and there is no denying that, which is the reason why there was never a so-called missing link found. Now, using the word myth to describe the Anunnaki, and the Sumerian writings, I would frown upon, as the tablets and seals were meant to record history as they knew it, and in fact, do exist, so this does not qualify as a myth. By saying this, it would have to mean that all recorded history is mythical. The word myth is another term for an untruthful story. Craxd (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken...a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form...it is NOT a term for an untruthful story.Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is definitely NOT a "proven fact" that Homo erectus had a different number of chromosomes from modern humans, because NO Homo erectus DNA has yet been found, let alone any intact cell nuclei in which one could count the number of chromosomes.Tmangray (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Am I now? You Darwinists can't stand a fly in the ointment. The definition of myth is: (1) a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events. (2) A widely held but false belief or idea. I would not call the Sumerian recorded history a traditional story. This page uses the word myth to make the recorded history of Sumer seem to be a "false belief", and that is fact. I know of many so-called accounts of ancient history being labeled as factual, only because it agrees with what a university says matched their scientific belief, but still, the ones that do not match these beliefs are always labeled as myth. That is funny, when one thinks of all those university theories about how the pyramids were made, only to be shot down later. In that case, those same theories should be labeled mythical too.--Craxd (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Annunaki as Sons of Enoch

It would be interesting to verify any kind of links between Enoch and the Annunaki. The song Veni Creator could very well have been sung by the Annunaki. 69.157.239.212 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this scholarly contribution. Your researches have led to my consideration that the song Yellow Submarine may in fact have originally been based on an account of life on the mothership by ancient insects from the planet Zog 39), who of course appeared several times in various ancient scriptures, before they were nuked in volcanoes. It's still just a tentative hypothesis though, so let's not insert it in the article quite yet. This discussion page is fascinating!

osiris, isis, and horace

Do the annunaki corralate to the celestial, other-worldly, or avian aspects of any of or all three of the "ancient" dieties?--204.118.241.186 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC) No. NJMauthor (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

the image on this page

is there any way to prove the image on this page is authentic? Where is this artifact on display. I used tineye (reverse image search)on the image and it shows up on 12 conspiracy theory type web sites, but nowhere like an anthropology dept of a university or a museum. prove it or lose it I say.72.195.136.189 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

A very good question. Looking at the file, it says the image was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons as a free image due to expired copyright. No other information given. I'd like to ask an image expert on this one. Now I must go find one. Aunt Entropy (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's legit, but not particularly representative. Anunnaki is just a generic word for deities. There were some deities in that image, but they did not take up most of the image. There are probably images we can dig up that more clearly show more deities and that have a clear source and clear licensing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal impression depicting an Apkallu priest going about his usual business with a Sacred Tree. The description "Ancient Sumerian seal depicting Annunaki" is just plain wrong.91.144.102.228 (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't belong on the page and I've deleted it. I think the image itself should be renamed and a note put on the talk page, but it would be nice to firmly identify it first. I'm scouring Google images with no luck so far. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Image renamed. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dr

Disregarding the 'speculative' portions of this article, the discussion of the etymology is horribly lacking. It IS appropriate to break down these words into their smaller syllables, and thus derive a word meaning based on the total meanings of the syllables. The very term Anunnaki is amenable to this, and there is no components which indicates royal blood or aything of the sort. An - heavens, sky na - to go ki = Earth

Dr

Hello, "Dr." In the above comment that discusses Horace, Osiris and Isis, the only portion authored by me is the word "no.". NJMauthor (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Syllables?

In every source, both wacky AA theory sources and sane sources I've come across, Anunnaki is rendered an(u) "sky" - na Locative/Dative - ki "earth". I highly doubt the current rendering, could someone with more expertise than me please verify that the current version is correct/not correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.42.244 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't remove the current rendering as it's attested by what we consider reliable sources - see WP:RS, but if you can find a reliable source with your rendering we can add it. I've searched and can't find one. We'd need a source making this specific rendering for the word. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Light on Summarian Cosmology

I do agree witht the first comment on this talk page. This is an unsuitably shallow description of who the historical / mythological Annunaki are from archeological evidence. These are some of the first gods of the earliest mythology known to us, and this author makes little to mention of the Summerians, nor the original myth that they where described in, or who created them. Sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superangel4774 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much anyone could pinpoint the 'original myth', how could anyone possibly know if there weren't undiscovered tablets? If you have reliable, non-fringe sources, please do add to the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good feedback advice

In this feedback. An ip gave some potentially good sources. "All people need to do is read 'Enuma Elish - A Babylonian Epic' or go to University of Oxford Online to read the Sumerian texts themselves. For definitnitions of the Sumerian texts, I recommend The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary". Ryan Vesey 14:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 21:07, 11 April 2016‎ Nihiltres version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand an existing article there.--Wing (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Pseudohistory, Sitchin, etc.

The section about pseudohistory should be deleted, as it basically comes from two references and neither of them are Sitchin's books. In my opinion, if whomsoever wants to comment on Sitchin, et al, then at least read their books and use that as primary reference. RISadler (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not originally want to have a section about modern pseudohistory, but I feel that it is absolutely necessary because, unfortunately, this is what the Anunnaki are best known for today. A Google search for "Anunnaki" turns up only two articles about the actual Mesopotamian deities (this one and one published by the University of Pennsylvania Museum); all the other articles are about the ancient aliens nonsense. This is why the current "Modern pseudohistory" section must be kept.

Regarding your comment about reading Sitchin's books, I have read them (well, not all of them, but some of them). We cannot cite him here, however, because he is not a reliable source. Ronald H. Fritze (the main source I used when writing the section), on the other hand, is a former professor of history, current Dean of Arts and Sciences at Athens State University, and a renowned debunker of pseudohistory, all of which make him an impeccable source. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Huh? So if A writes something, then on Wikipedia we cannot attribute his own writings to his own work, because A is classified as not a reliable source; but if B writes that A wrote something, then we can write what A wrote through the secondary, hearsay attribution to B, who just happens to be classed a reliable source? RISadler (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what "hearsay" means. Something is only "hearsay" if it is impossible to verify whether the person actually said something... which is not at all the case here, considering that Sitchin has published multiple books promoting these ideas, the titles of several of which are mentioned both in this article and in in our sources. This is anything but hearsay. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Obviously do I have a misunderstanding of what hearsay means, but so does Wikipedia. RISadler (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I also have/read most of his books. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:FRINGE. We shouldn't write this from Sitchin's perspective. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not from his perspective; just attribute what is written by referencing his books. It is about using primary sources, like real scientists do. RISadler (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, we are only allowed to cite primary sources if we also cite reliable secondary sources interpreting them. In this case, we do have several secondary sources, but the primary sources are unreliable and they are mentioned by name in the article, so there would be little improvement in adding them to the bibliography. Second of all, this is history, not science. Science and history are not the same thing and they rely on different methods. Science is based on empirical evidence, but, with history, we do not usually have any empirical evidence; most of the time (ignoring the occasional archaeological discovery), we just have documents and records. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the shift away from a scientific approach to social sciences. So are we now back to the purely descriptive methodology? RISadler (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

RISadler, acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's core policies first. Then we can continue this discussion. To that end, I have posted a message on your talk page with some useful links to start with. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, I did it just now. Very interesting in how Wikipedia evaluates facts. My mistake insisting on primary sources, so feel free to delete this section. RISadler (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, the ban on the use of primary sources and the insistence on secondary sources creates a slippery slope situation. Take this example under discussion: we cannot use Sitchin's own works as a reference to what he states about the Anunnaki, because it is a primary source; so we use a secondary source. Yet that same secondary source contains original arguments against the work of Sitchin, so by the rules of Wikipedia, we may not use this secondary source as a source of those arguments, because it is now a primary source. Therefore we need a tertiary source that parrots the arguments of the secondary source, so that we can use that as a reference. But if that tertiary source contains any original statements, we need to go on to the next level and then the next level and so on. RISadler (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

RISadler, sharp observation, but not directly related to this article anymore. Try to continue this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research instead, which is the discussion page of the relevant policy. I'd be willing to answer you there, though there will probably be many other editors there who are more knowledgeable than me.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, not much going on on that page, so maybe. It seems more like this is a solid policy of Wikipedia, thus no amount of logical arguments will be of any effect in getting it changed. RISadler (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

RISadler, that's up to you. Questioning things is also a core policy.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

In the "GA" section above - and in the text on the page - it is stated that Sitchin said that "[the Anunnaki] built the major monuments of the ancient world, including the Egyptian pyramids." Does he really say that, for example that the Anunnaki built the Acropolis? Also, in the text it says that "Sitchin claimed that the Anunnaki were forced to leave Earth when Antarctic glaciers melted, causing the Flood of Noah, which also destroyed all evidence of the Anunnaki's bases on Earth." I'm busy with Book 3 and the gods are back back after the floods. My point is that this is what happens when you use secondary sources as primary sources: you get things wrong! RISadler (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Could also be the secondary sources have been incorrectly summarized in the Wiki article here. Have you checked them?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, because I do not have access to those books. Irrespective of who is wrong (the secondary, peer-reviewed source or the contributor to Wikipedia), those statements are incorrect when evaluated against the primary source and should be fixed. This highlights the major problem with using secondary sources as primary sources, in that there is very little assurance that the contributor actually checks the hearsay statements against the original. Everybody just assumes. RISadler (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As Kato said above, ...we are only allowed to cite primary sources if we also cite reliable secondary sources interpreting them. You can use primary sources, provided the relevance of such sources, as well as their interpretation is established using secondary sources.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, this then places us right back at my original opening statement of this section and long'ish discussion: namely to use Sitchin's own books as the reference to what he said about the Anunnaki.

Sorry, User:Katolophyromai, but some of this is indeed due to errors in representing Fritze. I'll have a go at fixing them. I have Fritze's first book, the 2nd is on GBooks preview. Doug Weller talk 12:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

@RISadler: Fixed, any more problems? And you're wrong about secondary sources, we expect them to contain original research, that's not a problem. Doug Weller talk 12:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller, much better. You should also rewrite the "Sitchin claimed" sentences to "According to Fritze, Sitchin claimed", because by not using Sitchin as the primary source of what he wrote, it is still hearsay on the part of Fritze. BTW, I read what I could of Fritze on GoogleBooks and it is not quite the same as how Sitchin wrote the story in his books. RISadler (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• I just want to note that, in relation to RISadler's observations about the problems of secondary sourcing above: We don't require secondary sourcing for attributed statements. We can (but not "must") use Sitchin's work to say "Sitchin claims the Annunaki are aliens," and we can use Fritze's work to say "Fritze says Sitchin is full of shit." We always prefer secondary sources of course, for obvious reasons. But there can really be no doubt that Sitchin said X if we cite the book and page where he wrote X. That's the very essence of verifiability,

The thing we need to keep in mind is the comparative and absolute reliability of our sources for statements of fact. So Sitchen is a completely unreliable source for statements of fact because he's batshit crazy and thinks Stargate is a documentary. Fritze, however, is a well respected historian who specializes in responding to batshit crazy people. So if Fritze says "Sitchin is full of shit," we don't have to wonder if maybe Sitchins just happened to stumble upon the truth with this particular conspiracy theory. We can state as a matter of fact that Sitchins is full of shit.

I believe that the issue here is that we already have plenty of secondary sources saying "Sitchin claims the Annunaki are aliens," so we don't need to cite Sitchins for it. Since we prefer secondary sources even when primary sources are acceptable, we should cite those secondary sources for this section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with all your secondary sources are that you need to verify that each of them are actually unique in that they use Sitchin's work as reference, and not that they are all parroting the same single source of someone else's response to Sitchin's works; because if not unique, you still only have one secondary source. FYI, Sitchin's work is the only reliable source of Sitchin's work. Whether he is correct or not is another matter and not the point of this discussion. BTW, history is full of batshit crazy people who were right in the end, e.g. Henry the Navigator and Heinrich Schliemann. RISadler (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My main concern here is not so much the primary sources issue and more the problem that, if we cite Sitchin himself as a source in the bibliography, that implies that he is reliable and can be trusted, which, of course, is ridiculous.

Also, in response to RISadler's most recent comment, just because crazy people have been right before on rare occasions does not in any way imply that every crazy person is right; for every Heinrich Schliemann who gets lucky and finds Troy there are around five hundred other crazy people who are just wrong. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, Sitchin is/may not be a reliable source regarding ancient classical mythology, but he is ipso facto a reliable source of his own ideas, (mis)interpretations and a generally spanking-good SF yarn. What seems to me to be the problem is that everyone here is so gosh-darned afraid that the stupid people amongst us will not be able to differentiate between using Sitchin's works as a primary reference of his own statements and the actual endorsement of his theories, with the result that his works must be banned in totality. RISadler (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My main concern here is not so much the primary sources issue and more the problem that, if we cite Sitchin himself as a source in the bibliography, that implies that he is reliable and can be trusted, which, of course, is ridiculous. That's why we prefer secondary sources. As I said; we've got them, so let's use them. There's no need to cite Sitchins, I'm just trying to explain why RISadler's complaints about our sourcing policy being untenable aren't accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The problem with all your secondary sources are that you need to verify that each of them are actually unique in that they use Sitchin's work as reference, and not that they are all parroting the same single source of someone else's response to Sitchin's works No. If one reliable source simply parrots the critiques from another, then that first source is implicitly (if undoubtedly) endorsing and agreeing with said critique.

BTW, history is full of batshit crazy people who were right in the end, e.g. Henry the Navigator and Heinrich Schliemann. And that's why we use reliable sources to critique batshit crazy people instead of simply ignoring them because they're batshit crazy. Also, it's worth pointing out that the vast majority of batshit crazy people never turn out to have been right about anything. History may be "full" of such people, but history is also "full" of people who survived gunshot wounds to the head, people who cut off their own genitals, and people who fell in love with inanimate objects. History is a huge sample size. Don't read too much into the raw numbers. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So we count the number of anti-Anything secondary sources and the number of pro-Anything secondary sources ... and the one with the most parrots wins? RISadler (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That is called argumentum ad populum and does not float. RISadler (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the most reliable sources win. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not an appeal to popularity. There is no conclusion that it is true because it is popular. It is simply the assumption that reliable sources mean what they say, which is hardly a fallacy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You moved my comment so that it can be pulled out of context. (You signed a paragraph, which I interpreted as a closure thereof.) You know, this whole discussion reminds me of that Rodney Dangerfield clickie where he goes to university and fails American Literature (or such) even though he paid the Pulitzer Prize-winning author to write the report about his own book. RISadler (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You responded to my second (lower) comment, because my upper comment was directed at Katolophyromai and didn't mention parroting. I moved your comment to below that one, which is where it should have been put in the first place. Your second edit was place in the middle of my second comment (not, as you have contended, after my signature), which I why I moved it. Since it elaborated on your previous comment, I moved it to directly below that.

I hope, in your analogy, that you don't think Sitchin is the Pulitzer prize winning novelist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Then you should have used the "re" in square brackets. However, it's still argumentum ad populum when several "reliable sources" parrot each other and people see that as certainty of the "truth". Right-o, preferably this is EOD for me. RISadler (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is getting off-topic. Argumentum ad populum does not apply here for several reasons:

1. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the consensus of mainstream scholars; since all mainstream scholars say Sitchin is a looney, Wikipedia should reflect that consensus. This has nothing to do with whether Sitchin is right or wrong; it is just that we have to agree with what mainstream scholars say.
2. Argumentum ad populum is an appeal to the common populace; it is essentially saying, "Well, most ordinary people agree with me, so I'm right." That is not what we are doing here. We are talking about the scholarly consensus of experts who have spent their lives studying history. If all the experts say Sitchin is crazy, then that is a powerful argument against his credibility as a historian. It has nothing to do with how popular he is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to note that a defining feature of an informal fallacy such as an appeal to popularity is that it is not always fallacious. For example, an appeal to authority is not a fallacy if the authority being appealed to is an expert in the subject being discussed. Nor is an appeal to popularity a fallacy when the argument is one of popularity. This counts for a consensus, as well. No-one would consider it an fallacy to argue, for example, that "The vast majority of scientists surveyed say that string theory is more useful and likely to be true than loop quantum gravity, therefore the scientific consensus is that string theory is more useful and likely to be true than loop quantum gravity." Indeed, the argument isn't even a syllogism the way most are, but a fully self-evident statement (presuming that the premise is true, which in this case, it is). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops, better edit this article, as it actually uses one of Sitchin's books as a reference! Horrors! RISadler (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT and WP:SPIDERMAN. You should know very well why Sitchin is used as a reference there, and why this use is acceptable. It was just explained to you in this thread. I understand that WP's policies seem confusing and self-contradictory at first; they did to me, as well. But they have arrived at their current shape after many years, much discussion, and more than a few learning experiences. There are very good reasons for them. If you want help understanding some of it, please ask us and we will be happy to do so, but do not try to "point out problems" with them when you don't yet fully understand them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Always it is I who do not understand, never you. Please reread my original complaint: "The section about pseudohistory should be deleted, as it basically comes from two references and neither of them are Sitchin's books. In my opinion, if whomsoever wants to comment on Sitchin, et al, then at least read their books and use that as primary reference." The article to which I pointed, does it right, i.e. it references Sitchin for what Sitchin said and then references another work for the statement that Sitchin is wrong. My original comment is a technical issue regarding poor referencing and not trying to make a point about the validity of Sitchin's work.

The reason for this discussion growing out of proportion is because you all are of the standpoint that because Sitchin is wrong, one must never directly reference his works. This is an ignorance is bliss mentality; but primary it is a sign of lazy research.

Somebody, please just delete this section in the talk. I am quite happy with how the text of the relevant section of the article stands, because it is an example of the general lack of academic standard found in many Wikipedia articles, especially those written by those without post-graduate experience. As such, it is useful for anthropologists and psychologist to study the phenomenon of group-pressured pseudo-academic behaviour. RISadler (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Always it is I who do not understand, never you. You have fifty edits to your name. Between my main and alt accounts, I have well over twelve thousand. And I'm a relatively low level contributor. Doug Weller has over a hundred and seventy five thousand edits and I know editors with over three hundred thousand edits.

Just to give you some perspective on that gulf between you and I (ignoring the gulf between you and Doug), that means that for every single edit you've made, I've made over two hundred and forty edits. You could divide my total edits by yours, and I'd still have almost five times as many edits as you. Can you honestly consider that and still assume that I don't know what I'm talking about, here? If you can, then you're both sadly mistaken and have no business being here. And Doug? He's made about fifteen edits for every single edit I've made. He's got fifteen times the experience I have. Is he wrong, too?

The reason for this discussion growing out of proportion is because you all are of the standpoint that because Sitchin is wrong, one must never directly reference his works. I have explicitly refuted that exact claim on at least two occasions in this discussion, and yet you persist in dishonestly claiming I continue to push it. Furthermore, your complaints are entirely hypothetical: You have yet to point out a single actual problematic claim in the text and suggest a correction. What, exactly, do you want here? Wait, don't answer that one. I'm going to end with a different question.

But first, let me tell you a story. This is the story of the Newbie Editor Who Knew What Wikipedia's Problem Was.

Once upon a time there was a guy who got mad at Wikipedia. It was wrong, he thought! It was biased! At first he just shrugged it off, but as he continued to read Wikipedia, his anger only grew. One day, he got sick of keeping it to himself and he created an account. He then proceeded to tell all the experienced editors he met how wrong they were, and how if they'd just listen to him, they could improve Wikipedia. Then he got blocked and was never heard from again (except for an unblock request in which he further made an ass out of himself).
The end.

So are you here to improve the project, or are you here to present the billionth reenactment of the that story? I've seen it play out more times than you have edits to this project, and the path you're heading down right now by refusing to listen to experienced editors and instead trying to explain why everyone else is wrong has never once ended in anything except an editor who is indefinitely blocked from editing. I would dearly love to help you become a productive editor, but whether or not that's even possible depends entirely on you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This stage of any (Internet/social media) discussion is where I start laughing. You know nothing about me. You do not know what my qualifications, experience or standing is within any given field of knowledge. Yet you unequivocally make me out to be an intellectual infant solely on the basis of the number of edits/contributions I have made on/to Wikipedia. With that kind of reasoning, you, with 12K edits to your name, are more of an expert than any retired professor in any given field of study who only has done 3 edits. Sound reasoning, pal, very sound … not. It’s laughable. RISadler (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: and @RISadler: This whole discussion has gotten hopelessly off-topic and no longer has anything to do with the article. I assume the issue we are still debating is one of whether or not to cite Sitchin directly? My view is that I do not think that Sitchin should be cited in the bibliography because the bibliography is supposed to list reliable sources for people doing research to read if they want to investigate further. Since Sitchin is clearly not a reliable source, putting his books in the bibliography would be misleading. Nonetheless, since I can tell that RISadler is very passionate about his insistence that we must cite Sitchin himself, I am willing to cite him in a separate bibliography that is clearly marked as containing fringe sources. What does anyone think of that? Would that resolve the issue? --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, works for me. RISadler (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "cite", but I don't think we should have a separate "fringe" bibliography. Why? We link to his article, we mention his books. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree as well. Such a bibliography is only appropriate in an article about Sitchin himself, not in this article about the Anunnaki.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Bibliographies go in biographies, not articles such as these. With sufficient secondary coverage of Sitchin's claims, there's simply no need to cite Sitchin at all, and there remain several good reasons not to. No amount of arguing by the newbie can change that, so I suggest somebody archive this whole thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Very well. With my vote in favor, it seems we have a strong consensus to not cite Sitchin in this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The statement: "Sitchin predicted that the Anunnaki would return to earth, possibly as soon as 2012, corresponding to the end of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar" is false, Sitchin never predicted or theorized the Anunnaki return in 2012; he made a lecture called "2012: will the Anunnaki return?" to explicitly dismiss this idea and disconnect it from his work. (Alex) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.231.14 (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Better explanation of the Anunnaki's identification as asterisms of the north pole

I suggest to better explain in the article the identification of the Anunnaki as stars/constellations around the north celestial pole (An). Currently there is just a generic sentence which says that An, Enki and Enlil were identified as the sky itself. Actually all the gods are within An, and Enki and Enlil are two circles of constellations (out of three) around the north celestial pole. Source: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?letter=.&classic=YES&bibcode=1998JBAA..108....9R&page=&type=SCREEN_VIEW&data_type=PDF_HIGH&send=GET&filetype=.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.42.101.37 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I really appreciate it. I will try to incorporate it into the article. I probably will not have time before the end of the day, though, because I am rather busy right now, but I will try to get around to it as soon as I can. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ZECHARIA SITCHIN.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

confusing inconsistency

under "worship and iconography" it says "very little evidence to support the existence of any cult of them has yet been unearthed" but then in the very next paragraph "cult statues were given constant care and attention"

similarly, it says "no representations of the Anunnaki as a group have yet been discovered" but directly below is an image of a cylinder seal impression depicting 3 or 4 of them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.133.224 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

These are not inconsistencies. The statement that "very little evidence to support the existence of any cult of them has yet been unearthed" is talking about worship of the Anunnaki together as a group of deities; whereas the statement "cult statues were given constant care and attention" is talking about the worship of Mesopotamian deities in general. The statement "no representations of the Anunnaki as a group have yet been discovered" is talking about group depictions of the Anunnaki as a defined and complete set of deities, presumably also labeled as such; that cylinder seal merely depicts a few deities who were probably considered members of the Anunnaki. –Katolophyromai (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

12 gods of the underworld source

Heaven on Earth: Temples, Ritual and Cosmic Symbolism in the Ancient World : Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar Heaven on Earth, Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2-3 March 2012. PDF here[6] and page 156, a paper by Gary Beckman, says "and a file of twelve chthonic gods". Also The Sculpture and Sculptors of Yazilikaya Hardcover, 30 Nov 1986by Robert L. Alexander p.17[7]. @Paul August: will those do? Doug Weller talk 13:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Beckman, p. 156, with fig. 7.7 p. 162, is adequate for sourcing that the image depicts twelve Hittite underworld gods, and while it is true (as the text points out) that the Hittites had a group of gods, the karuileš šiuneš ('former gods'), that they identified with the Anunnaki, that this image is a depiction of those gods, is still unsourced. Paul August ☎ 14:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: That's not to say I think this is untrue, just not adequately sourced. Paul August ☎ 14:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Doug's Beckman source, and other sources given below, I now think we have adequate sourcing for the following modified caption:

Ancient Hittite relief carving from chamber B of Yazılıkaya, a sanctuary at Hattusa, possibly depicting the twelve underworld gods, which the Hittites called the "former gods" (karuilies siunes), and identified with the Babylonian Anunnaki.

(Note, the Rutherford and West cites should be able to be seen via the provide links, while Archi, pp. 114–115, says: Emil Forrer, in his well-known study on "The Kingship in Heaven" myth, pointed out that "the former, primeval gods" who apprear in the proem occur also in lists of the gods called as witnesses in political treaties, where they constitute a well-defined group¹. ... As Emmanual Laroche³ states in another important paper, these "former primeval gods", karuileš šiuneš, ... are also called "inferior gods", kattereš šiuneš, which means "gods of the earth", taknaš šiuneš, ... the expression kattereš šiuneš translates the Hurrian ... "inferior gods", who live in the Underworld and who belong to the first generation of gods. The Hurrians (and the Hittites), acquainted with the Akkadian deities, equated them with the ^DA-NUN-NA-KE₄)

References

• Archi, Alsonso, "The Names of the Primeval Gods", Orientalia, NOVA SERIES, Vol. 59, No. 2, Die Artikel in diesem Heft sind Einar von Schuler gewidmet (*28. 10. 1930 †15. 2. 1990) (1990), pp. 114-129. JSTOR 43075881.
• Beckman, Gary, "Intrinsic and Constructed Sacred Space in Hittite Anatolia" in Heaven on Earth: Temples, Ritual and Cosmic Symbolism in the Ancient World, edited by Deena Ragavan, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Number 9, 2013, pp. 153–173.
• West, M. L. (2007), Indo-European Poetry and Myth, OUP Oxford, 2007, ISBN 9780199280759.

@Doug Weller and Katolophyromai: What do you think (this subject is a bit outside my normal area of expertise)? Paul August ☎ 16:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Paul August: sorry to take so long. I'm fine with the new wording.Doug Weller talk 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A whole paragraph about Erich von Däniken?

I noticed that WikiEditorial101 has inserted a whole paragraph to this article about Erich von Däniken, but I do not think such coverage of von Däniken is warranted in this article. This article is specifically about the Anunnaki, the deities from ancient Mesopotamian mythology—not about the ancient astronaut hypothesis. I do not recall von Däniken using the term "Anunnaki" at all frequently, so I do not see why he should receive so much coverage here. Of all the ancient astronaut pseudohistorians out there, Zecharia Sitchin is the one who is most closely associated with the Anunnaki and the one who has done the most to influence the way they are seen in popular culture. Before WikiEditorial101's extensive edits, Erich von Däniken was mentioned only briefly one time as a precursor to Sitchin. I think that is appropriate coverage for this article, since von Däniken's theories are not nearly as relevant here. I am in favor of removing the paragraph about von Däniken and making only brief mention of him, as before, unless someone can offer a very good explanation for why they think he should be covered here in such depth. —Katolophyromai (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I honestly think that the section von Däniken was added in order to be dismissive of Sitchin. One can be dismissive of Sitchin, but it can't be dismissed that the Bible is based on older "mythologies" including those of Sumer. The evidence is there in cuneiform. WereTech (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Cite "Story 1980"

I couldn't find "Story 1980" source in "Bibliography" section. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Hedda Gabler: I checked and it wasn't added with the reference. I've added it. Thanks for spotting that. Doug Weller talk 17:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I find it interesting that there is no mention of or material cited from these three scholars: Dr. Jeremy Black, Geo Widengren, or Zecharia Sitchin. Richard Deal 14:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardjrdeal (talk • contribs)

Returning to GA state

I have cleared up the article to the state it was in when it received Good Article status. With the exception of work on citation formatting, there have been no constructive changes since February 2018. I have made a small edit and made note of this in an edit summary as a waypoint. Abductive (reasoning) 07:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoarchaeology and conspiracy theories Section

First off Sitchin didn't claim to be an Archaeologist. He was a linguist and a researcher. He didn't simply rely on his own translations, but also on the works of other authors from a wide span of times and countries. I fully agree that Erich von Däniken did not do great deal of research and was largely sensational and speculative.

"Sitchin claimed that the Anunnaki were forced to temporarily leave Earth's surface and orbit the planet when Antarctic glaciers melted (which, if the Arctic glaciers also melted, would raise water levels a couple hundred meters), causing the Great Flood,[73] which also destroyed the Anunnaki's bases on Earth.[73]" -

This is incorrect paraphrasing. "when Antarctic glaciers melted (which, if the Arctic glaciers also melted, would raise water levels a couple hundred meters)" is not what Sitchin said at all.

What Sitchin wrote occurred was - in my paraphrasing - that the Anunnaki knew that the Nibiru's next pass (orbit) would take it close enough to Earth to exert enough gravitational force on the Earth to destabilize the Antarctic ice sheet and cause it to slip into the ocean as a whole. No melting involved. The entire ice sheet slipping as a whole into the ocean relatively suddenly.

Here is what Sitchin wrote :: "...Our endeavor to unravel the puzzle of the Deluge then, focuses on Earth's climate changes, and in particular the abrupt collapse of the ice age some 13,000 years ago. What could have caused a sudden climatic change of such magnitude? Of the many theories advanced by the scientists, we are intrigued by the one suggested by Dr John T Hollin of the University of Maine. He contended that the Antarctic Ice sheet periodically breaks loose and slips into the sea, creating abrupt an and enormous tidal wave! ...the ice sheet became thicker and thicker, it not only trapped more of Earth's heat beneath the ice sheet but also created (by pressure and friction) a slushy, slippery layer at the bottom... ...The Mesopotamian texts, we know, related the Deluge and the climatic changes preceding it to seven "passings" - undoubtedly meaning the periodic passage of the Twelfth Planet in Earth's vicinity. We now that even the Moon, Earth's small satellite, exerts sufficient gravitational pull to cause tides Both Mesopotamian and biblical texts described how the Earth shook when the Celestial Lord passed in Earth's vicinity. Could it be that the Nefilim, observing the climatic changes and the instability of the Antarctic ice sheet, realized that the next, seventh "passing" of the Twelfth Planet would trigger the impending catastrophe? Ancient texts show that it was so...." - " The Twelfth Planet - Chapter 14 "When the gods Fled the Earth" - by Zecharia Sitchin - Bear & Company printing - page 356-359

My assumption would be if Nibiru's path was close enough to the Earth to cause the ice sheet to slide into the ocean that it would also have had an impact on the tidal forces as it passed as well.

WereTech (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

First off Sitchin didn't claim to be an Archaeologist. That may, in fact, be why the article never says he did, nor calls him an archeologist. That doesn't prevent him from engaging in pseudoarcheology or conspiracy theories, however.

This is incorrect paraphrasing. You should take that up with Ronald H. Fritze, as it's him we're sourcing this to, not Sitchin.

My assumption would be if Nibiru's path... We don't rely on original research to write our articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Redundant links in See also

Conspiracy theory and Ancient astronauts and not needed and already in article respectively. 121.98.204.148 (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of "Pseudoarchaeology and conspiracy theories"

Is there a point to the last sentence of the "Pseudoarchaeology and conspiracy theories" section: "In his 2001 documentary about Icke, Jon Ronson cited a cartoon, "Rothschild" (1898), by Charles Léandre, arguing that Jews have long been depicted as lizard-like creatures who are out to control the world." What does that have to do with the Anunnaki? Junkyardprince (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)