Talk:Nibiru cataclysm/Archive 2

Updating new Planet X claim from Nancy Lieder

Nancy Lieder has made the claim that Obama and other world leaders are set to announce the arrival of a planet in the solar system. Since the 2003 failed prediction has been well detailed, as well as the conflation of Planet X with the supposed end of the Mayan Calendar on December 2012, I will go ahead and properly reference this claim that was predicted on 2012 and has been evolving since then. thank you :) Emphatik (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Be careful what fringe beliefs you add to this article. If you do not use a reliable source, your edit will likely be reverted for spam linking and undue weight. -- Kheider (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There have been 7 in-line citations of zetatalk.com in this wiki. So I will use that site to report on Nancy's new claims mentioned above. If it were an unreliable source, it wouldn't have been referenced in the first place. As I suggested earlier, her claim (whether true or not) that world leaders have agreed to announce Nibiru is most definitely note-worthy in a wiki titled "Nibiru Cataclysm" (since other well detailed claims of hers like the failed passage of 2003, 6 days of darkness & what have you have already been established). If you want we can remove the part that talks about killing dogs--because like you said earlier this article is about Nibiru, not killing dogs. Right? Regardless, if we can fit killing dogs in this article, then we can fit a claim that world leaders are on the precipice of announcing the arrival of Nibiru. The whole point of a prediction/claim I guess is you report it before its supposed to happen. So I'll succinctly describe what I mentioned earlier in the same manner other "fringe theories" of hers have been described; using websites that have already been cited. thanks bud. you're the best :) Emphatik (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

If her beliefs are not mentioned in a reputable website outside of her own, there is a good chance her personal beliefs and future predictions do not belong in this article. It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to promote rubbish. -- Kheider (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok then lets be consistent then. Reference #13 refers to the "White Lie". No other "reputable website outside of her own" has mentioned it. Here is her own version of Planet X (reference #19) mentioned that is unique to her and no other "reputable website outside of her own" has mentioned it. Here is her mentioning the poleshift that was purported to happen on May 27, 2003 #8. Again, noone "reputable has mentioned it". Here is here claim that Mark Hazlewood was a scam artist. Noone reputable has mentioned it. Nope NPR & WaPo haven't mentioned it. You said that if not mentioned by a reputable website and are her personal beliefs, then they don't belong to this article. A description that the earth would stop rotating for 5.9 days is unique to her, and has not been mentioned by anyone else "reputable". I trust you will go ahead and remove these references to be consistent? You say "It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to promote rubbish". So will you take the references I mentioned out? Let me know when you do. else you've just proven you have no intention of being consistent in your criticism. thanks bud.:)

P.s. Like I mentioned earlier, I will cite using the very same websites already referenced in the wiki about other recent claims she has made on Nibiru. My intention is to provide every reader with a complete picture. Emphatik (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between demonstrating her failed predictions and promoting her future predictions. Wikipedia should not needlessly promote charlatans. -- Kheider (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Then take her entry Re: Planet X out, because it talks about all sorts of secret government stuff that have neither been proved or disproved.If you dont take it out, then in your own words you're promoting charlatans. Her opinion on Hazlewood is entirely one-sided & neither proven or disproved. Let me know when you take these two entries out. Emphatik (talk) 02:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Also thank you for helping me see the fault in your thinking. You say "Wikipedia should not promote charlatans". Did you read the entry on charlatan? It promotes 8 just in that one article. Also how many people who've claimed end-times prophecies have been articled? How many people whos prophecies that have yet to be manifested, have been written on in wikipedia? Noone says that because the so-called claim hasn't fulfilled, we shouldn't write about it in wiki. Just look into the prophets from all sorts of religions that are given a free pass to be articulated on in wiki regardless if they still have outstanding "prophecies" that havent been fulfilled. Yes, that is actually case closed regarding this matter. I have you to thank for. thanks. Wikipedia should be a treature trove of information. It should not be personally tailored to an individual's liking. If someone has made a prohpecy/claim & it relates to the topic of the article, which is prophetic/conspiratorial in nature, then it absolutely deserves to be written about. Your claim won't hold in light of other outstanding prophecies from all sorts of ppl, from all around the world (& time) that have been written about in wikipedia. thanks bud. Emphatik (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight decides if a belief is notable enough for inclusion. Nibiru is notable enough for an article, but Lieder herself, not so much so. Since so many people now claim to have knowledge of where Nibiru is, I am not sure Lieder's most recent thoughts are noteworthy or even matter. I am confident the Huge Chocolate Teapot is not notable yet. -- Kheider (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok. You've said "There is a difference between demonstrating her failed predictions and promoting her future predictions". Ok. In 2012, she said Obama was going to make an announcement about Nibiru. That claim failed. Then she went on to say that leaders from around the world would make an announcement Re:Nibiru on Oct.20 2014. That claim has failed. So like you said, since her failed 2003 claims have been demonstrated, I will demonstrate these two failed claims as well. This is in line with your reasoning stated above. thank you :)Emphatik (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added the failed prediction of a supposed announcement by Obama & other world leaders Re: Nibiru, according to the logic you provided Kheider. Should you choose to remove my addition, this is a friendly reminder to discuss the issue here before you may needlessly get into an edit war. Merry Xmas Emphatik (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Threatening me with an edit war will not win you my good graces. You are the one that was edit warring in this article. I only reverted your "pole shift spam link" once and you made 4 reverts. It is largely the consensus of other established editors that will determine the merits of any edits on a fringe topic. -- Kheider (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not threaten an edit war. I was asking you nicely not resort to it. I'm glad you accept that it is the consensus of all the editors that merits the point of a topic. I was under the impression you were the arbitrator of consensus. cheers Emphatik (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kheider, I wanted to go over some of the flaws I believe you have in your reasoning. So I will go over them one by one:

1) You said:"If her beliefs are not mentioned in a reputable website outside of her own, there is a good chance her personal beliefs and future predictions do not belong in this article."

This is wrong. EVERY claim she has made (including future predictions) in how Nibiru might cause a cataclysm is absolutely relevant, regardless of whether it is stated in a reputable website outside hers. Why? Because the claim made in this wiki isn't "a Planet will encounter earth". The claim made in this wiki is that "Nancy says that the earth will encounter another planet". Here's an analogy: If a wiki article states there is a god, then we absolutely need reputable sites to support this claim. But if a wiki article is talking about a god that Kheider was the first proponent of, then a primary source will suffice to prove that Kheider has claimed that there is a god. The refutation of whether there is a god is done separately, not by pre-emptively selecting Kheider's statements on the god. Actually this is what wiki suggests--that a point of view of a pseudo-scientific should be well-reperesented without bias.

2 You said:"It is not wikipedia's responsibility to promote rubbish"

It is wikipedia's responsibility to call out pseudo-science as such. But it is also responsible for making sure that the pseudo-science is well represented in a neutral point of view

3 You said: "There is a difference between demonstrating her failed predictions and promoting her future predictions. Wikipedia should not needlessly promote charlatans....Nibiru is notable enough for an article, but Lieder herself, not so much so. Since so many people now claim to have knowledge of where Nibiru is, I am not sure Lieder's most recent thoughts are noteworthy or even matter."

Both her past and future predictions belong here. Why? Because as the wiki itself says, she is original proponent of a "Nibiru cataclysm". Would anyone say we should be selective about what Jesus said Re:christianity? Or what what Mohammad said Re:islam? Or what Darwin said Re:his then theory of evolution? Since Nancy as the wiki claims is the original proponent of the Nibiru Cataclysm, publishing only her past predictions & not future predictions does not present the topic in a well-represented manner. This is actually against wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view when articulating a subject. So long as its clear her claims are pseudo-scientific (which it is), and the current scientific understanding is sufficiently elaborated on (you seem content with it, but personally I'd like to see more scientific literature) then Nancy the first proponent of the Nibiru cataclysm is as important to this article as Jesus is to christianity. Many ppl claim to know where Nibiru is, just like many ppl claim to be Jesus. Neither of them are given weight. But since Nancy is the first proponent of Nibiru as a harbinger of cataclysm, all her claims Re: Nibiru are relevant (future & past). The topic of this article is "Nibiru cataclysm" because of her. Being selective about her predictions is tantamount to biased representation of the "pseudo-science".

4 You said: "I am confident the Huge Chocolate Teapot is not notable yet."

Huge chocolate teapot wasn't the FIRST proponent of the topic this very wiki is named after. let me know of your thoughts. cheers :)Emphatik (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It is simple. Lieder lost control of Nibiru rumors after her failed 2003 predictions. Comparing Lieder to the multi-thousand year legacy of Jesus and the Bible is somewhat foolish. And instead of making impressions and complaining about other editors on the talk page, I suggest you make your edits and the consensus will judge. You are new to Wikipedia and it is yet to be proven if you have an agenda. thanks bud.:) -- Kheider (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Lieder got the 2003 thing dead wrong. That she lost control of Nibiru rumours is a subjective statement; the wiki itself suggests that it has burgeoned since her. My point in comparing her to Jesus with Christianity is to suggest that the original proponent of an idea must have his/her claims fairly represented. How can you not see that? This is actually a wiki policy. To have the claims made fairly represented. Since she was the original proponent of the idea, being picky about which of her Nibiru predictions to publish is unfair representation. Surely you're capable of understanding that. We dont just publish her failed predictions to meet our individual bias. We publish a fair representation, failed & future. And then we refute it with science & call it pseduo-science. cheers bud :)Emphatik (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Just quit inserting spam links to Pole Shift propaganda. You edits will be reverted if they are not appropriate for a fringe topic. I still do not trust you to be sincere since you have demonstrated a tendency to edit war and assume your know better than everyone else. No one has agreed with you in regards to removing Phil Plait's link. -- Kheider (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, listen lets not please vilify each other. My original removal of Phil's website was because of outdated links to the evidence presented there (we wont rehash the weather argument), to which Dr. K said it could be replaced with internet archives. (From my point of view, you & serendipodous had immediately gotten into undoing it. So I thought you were getting into an edit war with me). Nevertheless, this is past us. And my insertion of that forum was to present a better representation of the Planet X argument. Please dont equate that to propaganda. Re: Phil's website I was actually thinking of replacing it with a NASA site. I figured I'd bring that up later, tho. (We'll discuss this later) But do you disagree with logic from my previous reply? I guess I'll assume your lack of disagreement on it means you agree with the logic i presented in the previous reply. cheers :)Emphatik (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: Also, no i do not assume to know better than everyone else. Is that not why I'm going to lengths presenting my arguments here, to make sure I have consensus? cheers Emphatik (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Content removal

Hey Kheider, the source for the "dog interview" is already unreliable. It implies she is telling ppl to kill their dogs in order to eat them. Which she was not. Then it says she killed puppies. She only had puppy. (She did put the puppy down, humanely) The magazine itself is a fringe magazine, that has gotten facts wrong and more importantly misleading the reader. Slanderous material need verifiable and reliable sources. (wiki policy). cheers Emphatik (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Emphatik (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not slander if it is true. The statements are referenced. If you wish to re-word it, give it a try. But it is important that readers have a chance to judge the state of mind of Lieder. -- Kheider (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It is referenced to a source that has got the facts wrong. And is slanting what she said in the interview. Therfore the reference itself is libelous, and you're quoting a libelous source. Check wiki's policy on requiring reputable source. If they say she put down more than one dog down (when she only had one dog), then its a sign they're not reputable. cheers Emphatik (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Emphatik (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah. if it's the state of mind of Lieder, you're trying to convey, then its already presented evidently. lol. She's dealing in pseudoscience & claimed a planet would pass by & end civillization in 2003! Its 2014/15 & i think its safe to say nothing's happened. On top of this she says she's got implants in he head. These things more than suffice to convey her state of mind. cheers Emphatik (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You are still discrediting a good reference to the state of mind of Lieder. You can hear part of her interview here: Nancy Leider: Kill your Pets Before the '03 Pole Shift I do not agree with your pro-Lieder content removal. -- Kheider (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

All is well. Be at peace. Implants in the head; the earth stopping & then resuming rotation (impossible if one knows how the planets keep their rotation); and many such things. They go more than miles to convey that she's untethered from reality. cheers Emphatik (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Seredipodous. Lieder then says "this one is 18 months" & had mentioned earlier she only has one. The source cited says more than 1 dog. Therefore cannot be cited. Also see the strict policy WP:ALIVE. Neutral point of view isn't maintained in interview or magazine. As mentioned now magazine gets fact wrong. Therefore libelous & not neutral & not reputable. There are strict policies on writing biographies of living ppl. Also she's called crazy w/o proof from certified physician.(It should be in neutral point of view). cheers Emphatik (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We have multiple sources and the actual radio interview that she killed her dog. It is not slander when she admits it on the radio. So I see no problem writing: Roughly a week before the supposed arrival of Planet X, Lieder appeared on KROQ-FM radio in Los Angeles, and advised listeners to put their pets down in anticipation of the event. When asked if she had done so, she replied that she had, and also advised that "A dog makes a good meal". This helps demonstrate her state of mind and that she expected the world to end in 2003. -- Kheider (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kheider. I'll state where I agree with you.-- She says in that youtube clip you linked, that she put her dog down. But we need reputable source showing broader context of interview (i.e. it should be neutral & not just the salacious part of the interview). Here is where I & WP:ALIVE disagree with you. The way you've phrased it implies that she is "advising" ppl to kill their dogs & eat them. Second, that article I already have stated many times why and how is not reliable. WP:ALIVE states that info about a living person must come from absolutely reputable/reliable sources that are neutral. That article suggests that she has killed several dogs, & slants the interview's context. The youtube clip you showed is only a window of the interview, and not the entire interview shown in its context. To be consistent with WP:ALIVE, we should find a clip tht is broader in its context. Since the video is clipped by a user on youtube- it is not a reliable source and in keeping with WP:ALIVE. cheers. ty for your cooperation Emphatik (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You have achieved ZERO consensus from any other editors for your content removal. If you have an issue with the source(s) we can re-word it without blanking the whole section. There are very few high quality sources when it comes to Lieder because she is not an important public figure. That does not mean we should not use what we have. I (and other editors over the years) happen to think the forteantimes link is reliable enough for a fringe topic. I do not see how it violates WP:BLP when she admitted to it on the radio. You are the only editor that disagrees. -- Kheider (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read what I said earlier. The article got the facts wrong, and quoted salacious part of interview. The interview didn't have neutral point of view, as explained in previous reply. You just admitted that there isn't a high quality source. This is thus in violation of WP:ALIVE. But I'm sure there is somewhere a broader excerpt of the interview that provides a neutral point of view. If the source is not good, then we can't make claims to fit our bias. cheers Emphatik (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That is where the disagreement lies. Serendipodous and I believe the sources are good (even if not perfect) for a fringe topic. She went on the radio and admitted those things. Blanking the section only makes you look like you are here to help promote Lieder's agenda. -- Kheider (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kheider. Unfortunately this isn't upto you or me. It is decided by wiki's clear statement in WP:ALIVE. Wiki says the following:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

   Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   Verifiability (V)
   No original research (NOR)

I have already showed you that both the article & interview clip don't provide a neutral point of view. Also the interviewers call her crazy right after she hangs up the phone, thereby illustrating their bias & slant. The article as I have illustrated for the tenth time got the facts wrong, and slants the interview in the most salacious manner, making it unreputable. However right now whatever claims made should follow wiki's policy I just listed above. cheers Emphatik (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV simply requires that we stay true the source(s) and do not interpret them as we wish. The sources clearly state that Lieder put her dog to sleep and that dogs make a good meal. It is not libel to quote the sources that she made these claims on live radio. -- Kheider (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is what wiki says about NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

The interviewers clearly show they're not reliable as they said "its fun to play with crazy people". Therefore the work of the interview itself is not a fair representation, & is done with a heavy bias, something they themselves stated. cheers Emphatik (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The comments by Lieder herself are reliable. If the source thinks she is crazy, that is the sources interpretation. NPOV just prevents editors from changing the interpretation of the source. -- Kheider (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Claim can't be made without reputable source. The statement Nancy makes is in a nitpicked version of the interview. The broader context of the interview in its entirety is covered up. The interviewers were biased as illustrated eariler, and therefore attempting to paint her in a light in line with their personal bias (i.e. Not neutral). cheers 216.58.102.217 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

But the sources are good. It is your interpretation and/or personal bias(?) that they are not acceptable. You do not have a consensus for your content removal. -- Kheider (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As I have said earlier, not my interpretation, but Wiki's. Please dont accuse me of bias, when you're trying to start a witch hunt of Lieder by chasing selectively laid out & biased sources.Emphatik (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, except for the one about consensus. Rules must be evaluated for each particular situation to assess if they apply. -- Kheider (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me, that the article is very slanted and unjustified. I would expect a more sensible and grown up discussion of the facts, the language is far too biased and disrespectful User23UK 86.25.157.249 (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — 86.25.157.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Instead of meaningless complaints that accomplish nothing, do you have specific idea(s) of how to improve or re-word the article? -- Kheider (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nancy put down her puppy

Nancy Lieder is the original promoter of Nibiru and still writes about how it is coming. Should the following observation be in the article to better show the state of mind of Nancy Lieder right before the alleged 2003 doomsday event: Roughly a week before the supposed arrival of Planet X, Lieder appeared on KROQ-FM radio in Los Angeles, and advised listeners to put their pets down in anticipation of the event. When asked if she had done so, she replied that she had, and also advised that "A dog makes a good meal". The reference used to support this claim is: Mark Pilkington (2003) at Fortean Times Magazine. You can also hear her dog comments on youtube. Should the statement be watered down? -- Kheider (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The interview itself as I have suggested is slanted, as they say "its fun to play with crazy people" as soon as she hangs up the phone. Thereby showing that they never intended to provide her with a fair platform/representation--not in line with what WIKI'S policy on biography &WP:NPOV for living persons requires. The article itself suggests that she put more than one dog down, when she only had one. On top of this Nancy Lieder has claimed that the dog was actually a biting dog, and the vet himself had asked her to put it down. Instead what the interview, which is conducted by ppl who are trying to portray her in a biased light, does is misconstrue her & charge her with leading questions; & the article picks the most salacious pieces of the interview, while implying that she asked ppl to kill and eat their dogs. All of this is character assassination to me.

To Kheider's intent of showing the reader her state of mind, I said she already claims to have implants in her mind (impossible if you think of the time it requires for recovery). That she claims the earth would end in 2003. And she claims that the earth will stop rotating before a supposed cataclysm. All of this is already well cited in the wiki. Isn't all this from her own tongue enough to show the reader her state of mind? Should wikipedia resort to distorted and salacious sources to commit a witch hunt against her? cheersEmphatik (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's fault that Nancy Lieder made these claims on a public radio broadcast. Her radio talk is now part of the public record. I do not see where the reference claims that Nancy specifically told people to "kill their dogs and eat them". You are overreaching with that comment. Emphatik, you could have simply re-worded the section, but instead you choose to blank the section in an edit war without getting a consensus. -- Kheider (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Kheider, I will use an analogy. If Al Sharpton or another notable african american figure was invited to fox news & offered leading questions, would you give the interview credibility? Ofcourse not. because Fox has displayed their bias towards engaging in race baiting. Likewise in the interview you provided, the interviewers say "that its fun to play around with crazy people until they turn on you" (referring to Nancy), right after she hangs up the phone with them. Do you not see therefore they've illustrated their lack of neutral point of view, bias & reliability. Also please dont say i got into an edit war. You got along with me. Anyways, the wiki admins thought that the material should be removed as it stands now, for a good reason. But lets not get into personal attacks please. cheers Emphatik (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark Pilkington displayed no obvious bias in his written report of the radio talk show. Using your example, if someone says something on Fox News, yes it can be reported. Let us be clear: An admin locked the page to prevent edit warring. None of the admins took sides. Do not misrepresent the facts. You engaged in an edit war with me and Serendipodous. -- Kheider (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The admin reverted your changes. We already said that the article was wrong and showing interview out of context. But this is really about the interview. And noone serious would take fox seriously as being representative of facts as I discussed earlier.Emphatik (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please quit lying. Admin "Only" locked (protected) the page. Admin Only did not revert my changes. You (Emphatik) repeatedly reverted Serendipodous and I. You have ZERO support for your content removal from any other editors. Please quit misrepresenting the facts and let other people decide if it should be included, re-worded, or removed. -- Kheider (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please don't misconstrue or misinterpret my actions here. I protected this page in the state it was in when I protected the page. I did not protect it in one state over another...that Emphatik's version is the version that is protected is simply a matter of timing. Again, I have no side in this; I am only involved in that I protected this to prevent further warring for the time being. only (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki should refrain from posting comments out of context and stick to the facts, In this case a character assassination indirectly gives credibility to the Zeta Talk message. Nancy Lieder's work is extensive and attacking her merely raises more questions and interest into her work. The obvious question a reader would ask is why would Wiki seek to discredit her? Many will recognize this as intentionally disparaging. Perhaps even a little like Galileo's condemnation by the Church for his claims that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair What if she is right?... would be my first though after a childish attack on character. Stick to the facts Wiki. Michael Perrino (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC) — Michael Perrino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The comments are not out of context. The context is right there in the youtube link. There is literally nothing else discussed. The information was not intended to discredit her, but to show that she believes what she says. After all, many people believe she's making things up for attention. You don't want them believing that, do you? Serendi^podous 08:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually part of Wikipedia's job is to present the known facts and let the reader decide. -- Kheider (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

WRT the interview being "slanted" that is not really an issue. The mainstream consensus is that this is a crazydumb theory, and we are required to reflect that in the article. If we were to discount sources that did not take the crackpots seriously, we would be introducing a pro-fringe bias into the article. On the other hand, this is an article about the fringe theory, not Lieder. To me, this particular detail seems off topic and should be excluded for that reason. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. But do keep in mind that Nancy Lieder re-directs to this article. -- Kheider (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense to redirect here if Nibiru is the primary thing Lieder is known for. That does not mean she is the subject of the article - the fact that she is not notable enough to merit an article reinforces my opinion that the information is not relevant enough to include. I do note, though, that does not appear to have ever been a formal discussion about whether Lieder is notable. It is possible that she is independently notable enough for a biography, and it may be editorially favorable to include this "pets" information there. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for following up so that I know where established editors stand on this issue. I completely agree that if every there is a dedicated article about her then it would be very important to include her radio interview. But honestly I do not think she is that notable as the Nibiru culture seems to be doing just fine claiming govt leaks. -- Kheider (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry wasn't trying to misconstrue the facts. I had assumed ONLY (the admin's name) took it off to provide that as a neutral basis to start having a discussion from. Anyways besides me, Serendipodous & Kheider, the other two ppl agree that there is no need for this character assassination, as her state of mind is already evident through her claims. cheers. Enjoy your christmas ppl.. Emphatik (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

A little premature with your assumptions as always Emphatik. So far I see 2 established editors in favor of keeping it and 1 established editor suggesting the statement is not necessary because Lieder is no longer that significant to the Nibiru culture outside of her own websites. I have not heard anyone mention Lieder when talking about Nibiru/Planet X since 2012. Yet people still talk about Nibiru and more often than not bring up Sitchin instead of Lieder. The question might soon become how notable is Lieder to any of the Nibiru nonsense? -- Kheider (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not reached by established editors. It is established by everyone. So far you & Serendipodous on one side. 4 ppl (the one extra person who voiced his opinion in the content removal section on this topic) in favour of taking the character assassination off. As of now it is 4-2. But yes we'll let people/consensus decide. It is funny how previously you said this article is only about Nibiru cataclysm (& Nancy is irrelevant), but now you say we must include Nancy herself. Funny how you're changing your opinions to fit your bias. But thats ok. we'll let people decide. cheers Emphatik (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that you are new to Wikipedia and so far have only 1 interest. You have tried to add 1 pro-Lieder poleshift spam link while also removing 2 links that speak poorly of Lieder all based on the argument that pretty much came down to: "If I do not like it, you can not use it, and I will edit war, lie and ballot stuff to get my way." During content disputes you need to build a consensus among editors without ballot stuffing. There is no concern with wp:BLP or with how reliable the Fortean Times Magazine source is. The question was/is, "Should we show how strongly Nancy believed this stuff back in 2003?" There really is not much a of consensus here in regards to including the radio show as I am inclined to ignore "Michael Perrino" as he looks suspiciously like ballot stuffing and ballot stuffer 86.25.157.249 was not specific about his complaint when he answered in the other talk section. I guess only your future actions will determine if you are a good faith editor or a ballot stuffer. -- Kheider (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ballot stuffing? What are you talking about? When I asked ppl about a previous request for comment, they didnt respond. But now ppl that you disagree with dont respond. So they're what? paid by me?. Ok. Way to throw consensus that you dont agree with out.Emphatik (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am an outside editor picked by a bot to respond. Wikipedia per WP:NPOV should present all significant points of view. Points of view do not vanish over time. We as editors should not "water down" anything but bring out the facts as reliable sources present them. AlbinoFerret 00:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm new and registered specifically to express an opinion "observer" to reach a consensus. In Russia, popular ZetaTalk and Nancy showed even one of the main channels in Russia ("Russia 1" "REN-TV" and etc)

1. First of all I would like to say that the current article about the collision of Nibiru is absolutely not correct. When you write an article, you have to start from the primary source (ie ZetaTalk which has existed since 1995)! This is logical! You know perfectly well that the media can distort the original information. (This is often the case, and in general we have no reason to trust the mainstream media.) It can also be seen recent examples: Snowden, etc. In ordinary life, we have already fed up with the various "media applications". You must understand that it is better to trust the original source than CNN, BBC or similar. You must adhere to many points of view, and not one that you impose on the media. When you write about Nancy you will also start from the original source. (And not CNN, BBC and etc). Therefore, I propose to use the ZetaTalk as a original source.

2. About the interview can tell you that you should not be taken out of the context of individual phrases and indicate at the same time on the mental state of a person, it's funny and not logical! In the end, to find fault with such detail is not professional!

In general, I propose to rely on the facts and the source (ie ZetaTalk) and not on someone else's statements at main media. Or at least a "place" both points of view, not just one! After all, if there are contradictions show them! Stanislav308 (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Stanislav308 although your attitude to sourcing and logic does you credit, please note that on the same basis one could make an equally strong case for tooth fairies, invisible pink unicorns, Santa Claus, flying spaghetti monsters, ghost shirts, and vaccine-induced autism. The permissive attitude of WP to flying fringe crap consumption movements is not as loose as you seem to hope; if you wish to base your arguments on primary sources, I propose that you begin by reading and analysing Wikipedia:Fringe theories and its major links. You might notice remarks such as: "Wikipedia contains articles on pseudoscientific ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics"; it says nothing about supporting such articles or ideas, nor about accepting citations of the primary sources as support for anything more than demonstration that such texts exist, not for support of their subject matter or validity. I had never heard of this nut-case Zeta nonsense before the RFC, but it is a conspicuous example of "being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics". I do not have more time to waste on refuting anything of the kind, but argue that to keep pushing it amounts to disruptive editing or wikiwarrior activity. JonRichfield (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kheider Comment Suit yourself about including the material you describe. As long as you make it clear what you are quoting, and the context, relevance and intention of the citations, and control any temptation to synthesis, POV or libel, and all that Good Stuff, why not? Personally I feel polluted by the very contemplation of such infantile dreck, but if that sort of work suits you, have fun! JonRichfield (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree with the entirety of what Jon said. Except this little piece isn't contextual of the whole thing on what happened. However, I have a solution we can agree on. I found the entire transcript of an interview on Nancy's site. (It mentions the whole dog thing, and not just a sliver of the incident). It gives context to the whole dog thing, and isnt just a slice of an interview. The following is only part of the interview, but it has the dog thing mentioned (Scroll to bottom). http://www.zetatalk.com/index/wakeupt1.htm .You can now describe her advise to put down the dog in the context she was providing.Let me know what you think. I'm tired of this back and forth argument, And want to enjoy my christmas. cheers Emphatik (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with Zetatalk is that Nancy Lieder (of Zetatalk) is not an unbiased secondary source when it comes to talking about what she said on a Radio Talk show as Nibiru was suppose to cause pending doom in 2003. She may have been tired and confused, but that is the risk you take when you do a live radio broadcast. People have a right to know what she said at that critical moment in doomology history. -- Kheider (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In the YouTube clip of the interview when the radio host asks “have you killed your dogs” Nancy responds with “you just take them to the vet” so she obviously thought the host asked how do you kill your dogs and then he asked “have you done that” she says yes because she had put a dog down, like most dog owners eventually have to due to illness or in her case as she has stated aggression. Nowhere in the interview does she say she put her dog down because of the pole shift in fact at the end of the interview she says “ I never said do it now I said do it before the pole shift”. So where is the logic that she had already put her dog down supposedly for the pole shift but she is telling other not to do it now but to wait? There seems to be two topics being discussed, 1. That she is advising people to euthanize their animals before the pole shift so they don’t starve or become a meal and 2. She is talking about her personal experience with euthanizing a pet and what that entails, which she never says was because of the pole shift. The “shock jock” radio hosts created that connection for the audience. The clip is inflammatory, and twists the truth.67.164.97.53 (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nancy advised people to put their dogs down before the 2003 doomsday prediction that she was promoting. Anyone that did put their dog(s) to sleep in 2003 because of Nancy's predictions, killed their dog prematurely as it is now 2014. I still think readers have a right to know how poorly Nancy came across in the radio interview. Everyone is responsible for their actions and words. -- Kheider (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The transcript on Nancy's site provides the entire context for the issue, and you said zetatalk isn't a reliable secondary source. You're not wrong in saying so. But if that's the case then neither are the links you've provided. As its been repeatedly pointed out by the majority of ppl here the interview doesn't provide the proper context for the issue & is meant to be inflammatory & salacious--not representative of the actual topic discussed. This article shouldn't support salacious editing. When including sources to cite, make sure they're providing readers the entire context. cheers Emphatik (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your count is there are up to 5 people committing Wikipedia:Advocacy on this page: Emphatik, 86.25.157.249 (posted in wrong section), Michael Perrino, Stanislav308, and 67.164.97.53. The 5 established editors have no problem with the the Fortean Times Magazine reference: kheider, Serendipodous, VQuakr, AlbinoFerret, and JonRichfield. Of the established editors, only VQuakr thinks the statement should be removed as offtopic. So there is not a reliable consensus to remove the referenced content and the content should be restored. -- Kheider (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Kheider, everyone is responsible for their actions and words but wanting to keep the KROQ-FM interview because you “think readers have a right to know how poorly Nancy came across” is bias unless you also provide an interview where she didn’t come across poorly. If the KROQ-FM interview is to remain then this link http://www.zetatalk.com/index/media.htm to the rest of her interviews should be included so the article is unbiased.67.164.97.53 (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether she came across poorly. The issue is that people often think she sounds too crazy to be serious. What the interview shows is that she believes what she says enough to kill her own puppy. Serendi^podous 07:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Lieder made these statements, we have it in her own voice (primary source). It was reported by Mark Pilkington among others, it's proper secondary sources. Whatever the KROQ-FM interviewers thought of her, she made the statements of her own free will, I heard no indication that they led her on - if anything, they gave her ample opportunity to explain herself or take her statement back. Which reason is there not to represent her statement? “WarKosign” 22:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Kheider, actually there is no consensus to put the reference in. Hey korsign, there is a transcript of an entire interview (that i posted above) that provides the enitre context of putting her puppy down. But kheider doesn't want to use that. Jonrichfield said to use the reference so long as the full context is provided. I don't disagree with that. But Kheider prefers to use excerpt that provides a narrow, twisted context of the situation. In any case, he doesn't have consensus.Emphatik (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Emphatik: Is this the transcript ? It seems to be of another interview at a different event, when she gives a different explanation to putting down the puppy, without mentioning a dog making a good meal. Which other statements by her do we have on the subject of putting dogs down ? “WarKosign” 07:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Emphatik, please quit making up your own facts. There is a consensus among established editors to use the Fortean Times Magazine reference. We can not use the Zetatalk reference because it is not an unbiased source and was probably written well after Nancy's failed May 2003 doomsday prediction. -- Kheider (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Serendipodous, I believe the readership should be presented with all the facts so they can decide for themselves if she is crazy or not. It’s not in dispute that she has advised people to euthanize their pets before the pole shift she believes is coming, and it’s not in dispute that she has euthanized a puppy, but what is in dispute is why she did it. She claims it was because the dog was aggressive and dangerous. I believe she is telling the truth based on this (“In the YouTube clip of the interview when the radio host asks “have you killed your dogs” Nancy responds with “you just take them to the vet” so she obviously thought the host asked how do you kill your dogs and then he asked “have you done that” she says yes because she had put a dog down, like most dog owners eventually have to due to illness or in her case as she has stated aggression. Nowhere in the interview does she say she put her dog down because of the pole shift in fact at the end of the interview she says “ I never said do it now I said do it before the pole shift”. So where is the logic that she had already put her dog down supposedly for the pole shift but she is telling other not to do it now but to wait? There seems to be two topics being discussed, 1. That she is advising people to euthanize their animals before the pole shift so they don’t starve or become a meal and 2. She is talking about her personal experience with euthanizing a pet and what that entails, which she never says was because of the pole shift”) And the fact that she owns everything else, all the alien and pole shift stuff that people think is crazy. I don’t believe the interview show’s that she believes what she says enough to kill her own puppy because that issue is in dispute. There are videos out there by independent sources that provide a much broader view of Nancy Lieder, this one for instance would be a good compromise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFbZbshkVPo by The Verge ,it has the KROQ interview at 4:20, it also has many of the statements made about Nancy’s beliefs in the Nibiru cataclysm article, so it corroborates the article in her own words and has the KROQ interview that some of you want to keep.67.164.97.53 (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right and she had not said in the interview something like "I've already put my puppy as I recommended the listeners now, to save it the suffering during the poles shift". Nonetheless, by *NOT* mentioning dog's violence as a reason for putting the dog down, she implied that it was because of poles shift. This is how Mark Pilkington understood it, and this is how in my opinion every reasonable person would. Later she gave a different reason, both statements should be reported so the reader can decide whether she was misunderstood on the first occasion or changed her version on the second. “WarKosign” 08:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

My youtube clip (mentioned at the top of this discussion) gives a larger portion of the talk show than your clip. As WarKosign said, since Nancy publicly promoted May 2003 as doomsday, any reasonable person listening to the live radio broadcast would think she had put her 18-month old puppy down for the apocalypse and that they should do the same thing ASAP. The interviewers are laughing because that is what people do when they are made extremely nervous by someone's comments. So the bottom line is that Nancy did encourage people (whether by accident or incompetence) to put their dogs down for the May 2003 doomsday that she was actively promoting. -- Kheider (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree WarKosign, both statements should be reported so the reader can decide, the KROQ interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B6QDSzq1A0 and the transcript from the WakeUpUSA interview http://www.zetatalk.com/index/wakeupt1.htm. Individually both are bias in my opinion, but together they provide a more complete unbiased view, which should be the goal of the article. 67.164.97.53 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia quote Nancy's biased 2004 report that admits "Nancy only taped her side of the Interview" when we are talking about a 2003 radio interview right before the doomsday Nancy was predicting? -- Kheider (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-word?

How about something along the lines of "In 2003, in an interview with KROQ Nancy Lieder called the listeners to put their pets down before the imminent pole shift event so they won't hunger or be eaten in the upcoming world hunger and mentioned that it's a painless injection by a veterinarian and that she had already put her own dog down. In 2004, in an interview with WakeUpUSA she said that she'd put her 18 month old puppy down following the recommendation of a vet because the dog was violent and she was terrified it would bite a child."  ?“WarKosign” 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that the original statement should stand with a brief rebuttal afterwards? We could write: "Roughly a week before the supposed arrival of Planet X, Lieder appeared on KROQ-FM radio in Los Angeles, and advised listeners to put their pets down in anticipation of the event. When asked if she had done so, she replied that she had.(watered down version of Fortean Times and what was really said in the 2003 radio interview)(Nancy would later claim that she had only put her 18-month old puppy to sleep because it was acting aggressively.)(Here we reference the biased Zetatalk)." I think wp:synth has to be applied here. -- Kheider (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the facts should be laid out without leading the readers to a conclusion and I don’t see why links to Nancy’s words cannot be used whether they are from her web site or a YouTube clip of an interview, both are her words. And if a statement is being made about what she said the link to her actual words should be included, that is not bias that is pointing to a source. This is basically the time line as far as I know, January 18, 2003 http://www.zetatalk.com/xtime/x28.htm she advised people on what to do with their pets for the pole shift, which was put them down so they won’t starve for be eaten. Then we have a clip from the KROQ interview in the early spring of 2003 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B6QDSzq1A0 where the topic is discussed and she is advising people to put their pets down for the pole shift for the reasons stated above and while describing the process of putting her pet down it is assumed she did it because she believed the pole shift was imminent. Then on November 10, 2004 she did an interview with WakeUpUSA http://www.zetatalk.com/index/wakeupt1.htm that was taped and transcribed by Nancy and put on her web site where she clarifies the reason she put down her dog. There is no disagreement with what she is advising but the sticking point here is did she put down her dog because she thought the pole shift was imminent, and upon close examination of the dialog between her and the interviewer it cannot be definitively said that she did, so language making a definitive statement about why she put down her dog cannot be used that is something the readership will have to determine by listening to the interview and reading all the links. I think it should say something like this: Nancy caused controversy a week before the supposed arrival of Planet X in the spring of2003 during an interview with KROQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B6QDSzq1A0. While advising people to put down their pets for the pole shift many people assume she had already euthanized her dog for the same reason. At the time this topic was not new to Nancy, she had been advising people about what to do with their pets for the pole shift on her web site since January 18, 2003 http://www.zetatalk.com/xtime/x28.htm . Then on November 10, 2004 1 1/2 years after her failed prediction she did an interview with WakeUpUSA http://www.zetatalk.com/index/wakeupt1.htm where she stated that her dog was put down because of aggression not the predicted pole shift. 67.164.97.53 (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Do we have sources for "Nancy caused controversy", "many people assume"? If not, these are weasel words that can be dropped leaving the rest of the facts in. “WarKosign” 09:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

67.164.97.53, your version would violate Wikipedia:No original research, so can not be used. You also seem to be ignoring the reliable secondary source to the Fortean Times just because you do not like their interpretation of Nancy. Anyone listening to the 2003 KROQ interview has no idea what Nancy will claim in 2004. The only reliable source (wp:undue) must be given slightly more weight. I am not saying there can not be a brief rebuttal. But my modified version is far more appropriate given the timeline and credibility of the sources. Wikipedia can not go around claiming A+B=C without a reliable resource that says so specifically. -- Kheider (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We had however established earlier that fortean times wasn't relaible in this case, because they say she put down several dogs. When she only had one dog. It shows you how little they even know in the first place. Emphatik (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Emphatik, you are the one claiming Fortean Times is unreliable. Not a single established editor found Fortean Times to be unreliable, thus we can use it. It is not Fortean Times fault that Nancy was unclear in her statements. Zetatalk is much more dubious since Nancy controls the website and claims there are hidden planet(s), aliens, and poleshifts. -- Kheider (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nancy is indeed clear if you even just hear the excerpt that you provided. That fortean got the fact wrong is indicative of lazy journalism & lack of fact checking on their part--something every journalist is taught to do. No one else has pointed it out, because no one's noticed it. If fortean got the fact wrong, then it cant be cited. Its that simple. If new york times gets a fact wrong, it cant be cited. All this on top of the fact that the whole context isn't provided.Not only is the entire context not provided, but it gets fact wrong. Yet you're debating to cite it)

I have listened to the interview and Nancy is NOT very clear about what she is saying. From 30 seconds to 70 seconds into the talk she is very unclear. She was not clear about how many dogs she put-down, much-less why. Even NASA makes mistakes in their articles, that does not invalidate an entire article. -- Kheider (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. i saw your recent addition to the wiki. (good reference & good addition--something i agree with u actually) cheers Emphatik (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

pps: you talked of a modified version of what you wanted to add. Could you repeat it? The conversation above this has serveral versions all over the place. thx Emphatik (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Look up 9 paragraphs for my statement that starts, "So you are suggesting that the original statement should stand with...". I will add it to the article so that you can look it over. We can not make up our own wp:Original research and your should read wp:Verifiability, not truth. -- Kheider (talk) 06:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Kheider, this is a quote from the Fortean Times article “Speaking on Los Angeles’ KROQ 106.7 radio about a week before N-Day, Nancy claimed to have had her 18-month-old German Shepherd dogs put down to save them from further suffering during the Pole Shift. “The puppies are in a happy place,” she told gasping presenters, ”to them it wasn’t anything different to a rabies shot.” Proving that she is, above all, a pragmatist, she later added: “What are you going to feed those dogs (after the Pole Shift)? You know, a dog makes a good meal.”” The Fortean article cited the KROQ interview which earlier in this discussion we determined by carefully analyzing the dialog does not support as fact that Nancy put down her dog because of the pole shift. There is no source that I am aware of that can be used to support that assertion. The Fortean article can’t be used for anything because it explicitly says she put her dog down because of the pole shift and the YouTube of KROQ Interview can only be used to support the fact that Nancy has advised people to put down their pets before the pole shift. I support laying out the facts but and letting the readers come to their own conclusion, but the more I think about it I don’t understand the reason for the Nancy put down her puppy section in this Wiki page. Without being able to substantiate the claim she put her dog down because of the pole shift the only thing the KROQ interview can be used for is a source for her advice on putting down pets for the pole shift and the Wiki page doesn’t cite any of her other advice. 67.164.97.53 (talk) 07:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

As WarKosign wrote, "she implied that it was because of poles shift" and this is how in my opinion every reasonable person would. Her Zetatalk rebuttal is now included. -- Kheider (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The interview does imply she killed her puppy because if the pole shift but it is the interviewer is giving this impression more than Nancy. You can’t stat something that is implied as a fact. 67.164.97.53 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But we can quote Fortean Times Magazine and Zetatalk as sources. If we could never state something that is implied as a fact, this fringe article would not even exist. We will never have "definitive proof" of what Nancy meant on that 2003 radio interview. -- Kheider (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But you can cite the interview and let people draw their own conclusions, you don’t have to cite an article that takes statements out of context and present’s the writers assumptions as fact. The article is a bias interpretation of the interview so just cite the interview. That would be the honest thing to do. 67.164.97.53 (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither youtube or Zetatalk would be considered reliable sources if this was not a fringe topic. The bottom line is that right before the supposed 2003 arrival of Nibiru, Nancy did acknowledge that she put her dog(s) to sleep and implied to the average listener it was to protect them from the arrival of Nibiru. Another option I see would be to re-word "When asked if she had done so, she replied that she had." as "Nancy had even convinced the Fortean Times magazine that she had her 18-month-old German Shepherd dogs put down to save them from further suffering during the Pole Shift." But that would be wordier. -- Kheider (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we all understand the concerns the other side is bringing up. So that being said I'm inclined to say that the way it is now is a reasonable compromise. I will ofcourse check in to see if ppl have any opposition. I've cleaned up the reference you added . Now, I wanted to bring something else up as well. There is a picture of a star that is claimed to be purported to be Nibiru (on the top right of the wiki). Who purports it to be so? I can add another pic that is supposedly claimed to be Nibiru along with NASA/SETI's david morrison's specific refutation on it, tmrw. You gimme your opinion of it when I do so. In the meantime enjoy your christmas/break (that is if you're allowed to have one). cheers Emphatik (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Answering BOT-generated invitation to this RFC). I have listened the interview, read the link to Fortean Times and read the Wikipedia piece. My conclusions:

From radio interview one cannot conclude why she killed her dog. In particular, we cannot definitely say she did so due to Nibiru (although one may draw this conclusion from the context) We cannot conclude 100%whether she deliberately omitted the actual reason. First, the interviewer was interrupting her, so that she could have simply slipped off her train of thought. Second, since she later confessed in the alleged "white lie", this omission may have been part of this "white lie" (like, "yes I killed her (but you are stupid enough, so just as well let me let you think that I did it because of doomsday)"). Therefore all Wikipedia article can do is to report exactly what we see in the sources: who said or wrote exactly what, without further picking author's minds. And to this end I edited the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Who killed the dog

About this edit. I explained my edit in the section above, but it was reverted without discussion of my argument. So here is more. Of course, it is difficult to keep in line with WP:UNDUE & WP:RS & WP:FRINGE when dealing with a topic about wackos. Still, if you are trying to use some source1 which describes another source2 and you see that source1 puts an extra twist on source2, then you must either reject source1 as unreliable or indicate that source1 puts extra words in the mouth of source2. Wikipedia should not increase the informational chaos, so make your pick. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have tendency to agree since Nancy did say that she killed her dog and was not clear about why. -- Kheider (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what Staszek has said here. Source2(the article) has indeed twisted the source1 (the interview) with factual inaccuracy--which is why we've left it as only a citation, instead of quoting its slanted view. Thereby giving equal weight to interview & Lieder's claims. No need to add to this confusion, by adding a derivative work that misrepresents the original interview. So the current situation is what we reached consensus for. If you want we can take the article (source2) off then. Emphatik (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You cannot leave a footnote to a view which arbitrarily interprets the interview. Once again, either remove this footnote, or explain who said what. Either leave a ref to interview only or explicitly say what Fortean Times interpretation was. I personally stand for the second option, because it was a widespread (mis)interpretation of the interview and the distinction must be clearly drawn. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you've put here & we'll discuss. However, I've reverted you're change to one of Lieder's current claims. The wiki is rife with Lieder's claims. If you take all the primary sources off that havent been detailed by secondary sources, half the stuff would have to be redacted. To provide a better representation of her current claim I've put it back on, so that the reader is provided with a current understanding of her claims. Emphatik (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. The widesrpead interpretation as you put it has already been stated in the wiki, with the youtube excerpt to support it. Just leave it as it stands and both sides are represented equally now Emphatik (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Emphatik, please quit instantly reverting people as if you own this article. If you agreed with someone you would not be reverting their edits. I also doubt if Nancy's claims from 2012 are worth noting since no independent credible secondary source even covers them. -- Kheider (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not reverting but keeping it to the original state it was. We already established before mush of the sources here weren't credible and proven to have gotten facts slightly wrong (i.e. fortean), but still kept it as it was the best possible source. -- Emphatik (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Restoring to your preferred version is reverting. And as usual you are reverting multiple established editors. -- Kheider (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Now regarding kill vs euthanasia, When the interviewers ask her if she killed her dog, she replied its like giving a dog a rabies shot (i.e. euthanasia). Then they ask her if she did that (i.e. have the dog euthanized at a vet). And she replied she did. On a separate occasion, she explains the euthanasia process again. Never does she say that she killed the dog. She responded specifically to that question by saying its like taking the dog to the vet for a rabies shot. Saying she "killed" is misrepresenting the facts. Do you think ppl in coma who are euthanized are killed? There is a difference between the medical procedure & killing. Dont misrepresent the facts in the interview you're quoting. Emphatik (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

When asked "You were not really advising people to drown their dogs" Nancy replied "Yeah." And then Nancy went on to explain that the dogs were going to starve and be in a worse situation. Nancy's statements were very unclear to a casual listener and by 70 seconds into the youtube clip I am confident most people thought she had killed her dogs. As "Staszek Lem" recommended (as he is not a SPA), I have restored the Fortean Times reference as it is the only independent secondary source about Nancy's poor interview. I have added: Nancy's statements even convinced the Fortean Times that she had put down her dog(s) to save them from further suffering during the Pole Shift. -- Kheider (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Saw ur edit. Fair enough I guess.(Even though I have my reservations about it :/). I'd like to work with you in this spirit. cheersEmphatik (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kheider: While I agree with you, my only reservation is that the phrasing "even convinced the Fortean Times" is a wikipedian's opinion of why the FT printed such text. There may be several other explanations. Therefore I suggest you to stick to plain facts as I did in my version of the passage: "She said that.... Commenting on the interview, Fortean Times wrote that..." Anything else is original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we simply write, "The Fortean Times wrote that Lieder had put down her dogs to save them from further suffering during the Pole Shift."? I am not confident that conveys the reality of the confusion of the radio interview and I am not convinced my version is original research. Are you thinking Fortean Times wrote something that they were not convinced of? What other explanations are you suggesting? -- Kheider (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

re: OR or not: As a person that has no interest or knowledge on the subject whatsoever and evaluating it only formally as a wikipedian, I can see clearly any POV leanings. For example, you goal is to "conveys the reality of the confusion of the radio interview". The only way you can convey this is by citing a source which discusses this confusion. Anything else (e.g., phrasing in a certain way, i.e., "editorialising") would be wikipedian's POV pushing, whether this POV correct or not. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

re: why RT wrote what they wrote: Here you go: (a) to make Nancy look stupid (b) to make Nancy look genuinely convinced in her belief (c) to make the Nubiru case more convincing (d) to make the article longer (logorrhea, if you want :-) (e) they really didn't think what they wrote (not the same as being convinced of something) (f) they didn't really care about accurately describing an interview; they have already had some "preexisting condition" and merely twisted the interview into their frame of thinking. You want more? $10 per item (and it will not count towards WP:NOPAY, since this is a talk page, not article page :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to fear bad faith or incompetence on the part of the sources, how does Wikipedia know that the Youtube clip is unaltered and reliable? Given this is a fringe article, excellent and unbiased sources are few and far between. -- Kheider (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Incompetence of sources can be proved. Especially for, as you say, a "fringe" article. But this has nothing to do with our discussion. My answer to your direct question is an explanation why I think you version of the text is original research. You cannot second-guess the motives of the writers. Broken telephone and other distortions of information happen all the time. And we better not meddle in this. If you want to use info from a source, so be it, but you cannot add information about the source without reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me put this another way, how would you write and source the first section of that paragraph? I think what we have is more accurate than what we started with on 12 December 2014. Your 29 December 2014 version that says "some news outlets alleged" also seems like original research since we only reference the FT magazine. -- Kheider (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest to drop the Fortean thing. Here's how the paragraph starts off as in the wiki. "Roughly a week before the supposed arrival of Planet X, Lieder appeared on KROQ-FM radio in Los Angeles, and advised listeners to put their pets down in anticipation of the event. Nancy's statements even convinced the Fortean Times that she had put down her dog(s) to save them from further suffering during the Pole Shift"

The claim made in the first sentence that is substantiated by the youtube excerpt is basically being repeated by the second sentence using fortean as a reference. Since the first reference already establishes that Lieder advised listeners to put down dogs, then there's no need to bring in fortean (which only adds to the confusion). We already have the original interview's excerpt. Fortean just obfuscates the reality. I wanted to added a line in the wiki, but then it starts feeling like the wiki is becoming more about a dog then its original premise.

So, my opinion is take fortean off. It just confuses things. What fortean is saying (or trying to say) is already covered by original interview's excerpt. (I feel like by putting fortean in we are somewhow attempting to vindicate/defend fortean rather than actually add to the wiki) my 2 cents.Emphatik (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Emphatik, I was not asking you as you are a SPA that seems to be against references that speak poorly of Nancy. If we are going to remove the FT reference we should also remove Nancy's 2004 rebuttal as offtopic and unneeded. -- Kheider (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a SPA? And there you go again thinking you own this article. The intention to take the Fortean off was because we've already estabished it got minor facts wrong & is adding to the confusion. This wiki isnt about rectifying Fortean as a reference. What Fortean is saying is already represented in its original state by the clip excerpt. However, when an allegation is made about someone, its fair to provide the subject's pov on it as well. If another 10 articles spoke about this matter, would we include them all in this article? No. Just what is necessary to establish the facts. That she advised ppl to euthanize their pets is already established. No need to bring another source that makes thigns more confusing.

Anyways I've made the following edit that helps with the flow of the paragraph. The first line didnt have a reference. So I gave that line the utube clip as a reference. And took the line " When asked if she had euthanized her dogs, she replied that she had." off (as its basically stated in the first & third lne). Before it gave the impression she was being asked by Fortean. Now it flows better. Emphatik (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

As it stands now (succinct & flows better. Evryone's pov is represented.) - Roughly a week before the supposed arrival of Planet X in May 2003, Lieder appeared on KROQ-FM radio in Los Angeles, and advised listeners to euthanize their pets in anticipation of the event.[14] Nancy's statements even convinced the Fortean Times that she had put down her dog(s) to save them from further suffering during the Pole Shift.[15] Later, in a 2004 interview she said that she had originally euthanized her dog because it was acting aggressively. Emphatik (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your 16 Jan version is that Nancy suggested many ways to "put pets down" and admitted she had already done so. So I combined your deleted sentence with the first sentence. Wikipedia is not here to sugarcoat Nancy's May 2003 statements. -- Kheider (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy. Just logging in to say i think the way its written now provides a fair representation. I dont want to antagonize anyone here. So lets call this a good talk/resolution. cheersEmphatik (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV to delete evidence of additional planets?

How do other editors feel about the deletion of material about scientific research suggesting the possible existence of additional planets? The paragraph prior to this one cites research that such a planet is unlikely to exist, so why is research suggesting a planet or planets may exist being summarily deleted? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nibiru_cataclysm&diff=642897314&oldid=642896992 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See Planets beyond Neptune. Scientific evidence for trans-Neptunian planets has nothing to do with this; no one who is searching for such objects is intimating that they are about to collide with us. Making such a connection is OR. Serendi^podous 11:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The cited reliable source does not comment on the possible orbit of this planet or planets, only that they may exist. Seems as notable as research saying such planets probably don't exist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The research doesn't say such planets don't exist; only that such planets, if they existed, could not be on a trajectory that was about to hit us. Serendi^podous 12:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If there are additional planets, that would be a necessary condition for the existence of planets that could hit us, but of course it would not be sufficient to prove that such "dangerous" planets actually exist. While it is unlikely that any large planets discovered beyond Pluto will have a strange orbit that could result in a collision, their existence makes it possible that such a planet with an extreme ellipitic orbit could exist. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And the existence of a giant undersea mountain is a necessary precondition for it to be hollow and the location of a hidden alien base. But just because there is a giant undersea mountain that doesn't mean there's an alien base under it. Serendi^podous 12:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually this is pretty simple. You need sources meeting WP:RS that discuss the Nibiru cataclysm. Otherwise it is original research. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

He is using RS; it's just that the RS he's using are irrelevant, because they make no claim about a giant cosmic object about to collide with Earth, which is what this article is about. Serendi^podous 14:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The speculation is about an object perhaps 5 times Earth mass and hundreds of AU from the Sun. Such an object would never come closer than a few hundred AU from the Sun (or Earth) and would never be visible to the naked eye. The reference has nothing to do with Nibiru which is suppose to be a near-Earth object with a 3600-yr orbit. Objects are perturbed from the Oort cloud all the time by passing stars and the galactic tide. A star can be expected to perturb the Oort cloud every hundred thousand to one million years. As far as Earth impacting TNOs are concerned, it really does not matter if there is a 5 Earth mass perturber 300-500AU from the Sun. -- Kheider (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kheider here. But I think since the "scientific rejection" talks about a Nibiru/planet x as bring detectable by orbit perturbations (albeit within our solar system), you should try distinguishing planets beyond pluto from this nibiru/planet x theory. Something like, yea we know the orbits of extreme trans neptunian objects(ETNOs) are perturbed. But they are some decades of light years away at their closest point to the sun. That might help rectify the situation. my 2 cents cheersEmphatik (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune should not mention unscientific rubbish. If Nibiru was real and currently within ~150AU of the Sun, current optical surveys would have detected it. If an object with 4 times Earth's mass was making close approaches to Earth every 3600 years, the perturbations on the 604000+ known main-belt asteroids would be obvious. -- Kheider (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

U might have misunderstood me. What you said here is what I was stating. So to avoid the confusion for the reader include a line that distinguishes etnos from a hypothetical planet in the inner solar system & then link it to the wiki on planets beyond neptune. cheers Emphatik (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no modern/accepted hypothetical planet that ever comes inside the inner Solar System. Nibiru fails every test. Repeated perturbations on the asteroid belt by such an object would be obvious. An ETNO is just another term for an extended Scattered disc object (SDO). SDOs at ~1500+AU can get scattered by a passing star every hundred thousand to a million years. -- Kheider (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Added pic of lens artifact to infobox

Hi. I've added a pic of a lens artifact as purported evidence of this mythical planet. Since you yourself have suggested that Nibiru is supposedly a planet with a 3600 year orbit, ETNOs would disqualify to be likely candidates for this nibiru theory. However, it would also disqualify V838 Mon as a likely candidate as well. In fact, a cursory search over google will show much of what is purported as being Nibiru are actually lens artifacts. As such, I figured a picture of one such lens artifact is far more representative of what is being claimed to be purported evidence of Nibiru. cheers Emphatik (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That image was painful to look at, and doesn't illustrate the topic in any way. Serendi^podous 17:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

All images of Nibiru come from the scientifically illiterate or people blatantly lying. An object in a 3600 year orbit can NOT stay hidden near the Sun. Such an object would be visible under a dark sky most of the year as the Earth moves half way around the Sun every 6 months. If Nibiru was a real object, it would be some kind of Scattered disc object because of the eccentric orbit of 3600 years. But Nibiru is made-up rubbish. Unlike a lens flare, at least the image of V838 Monocerotis is a real object 20000 light-years away. -- Kheider (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. But much of what is claimed to be evidence of Nibiru are actually lens flares, no? How can we arbitrarly say that v838 Mon is what is fuelling this theory, when that isn't the case. So it would be the picture of a lens flare that would best represent this theory. I agree with Kheider's logic. But v838 is not what is being purported as evidence of Nibiru. As you say, "Nibiru is made-up rubbish". Then we should show why that is the case, & not arbitrarily put the picture of a star 20000 light years away. (We cant disqualify discussion of ETNOs, but then include a star 20000 light years away) Emphatik (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can take a picture of a lens flare (which will be inches from their nose). They have to be somewhat more creative to claim a section of Google Sky, CW Leonis, V838 Mon, M8 (Lagoon Nebula), etc. People have used the expanding light echo of File:V838_Monocerotis_expansion.jpg to claim Nibiru is getting closer. There is no reason Wikipedia should settle on a single lens flare when lens flares are infinite in nature. -- Kheider (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)