Wikipedia:Peer review/ZetaTalk/archive1

ZetaTalk

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, while it began merely as a document of one rather peculiar internet phenomenon, in recent years that phenomenon has grown out of all control and taken on a life of its own (As an example, Googling "Nibiru" and "2012" produces 444,000 hits). As the 2012 date nears, this page will only become more important. So should it be renamed? If so to what? How do I go about defusing some of the more ridiculous claims without violating NPOV or NOR? And what constitutes a reliable source in this situation?

Thanks,  Serendi pod ous  08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Wow, what a can of worms. Thanks for working on this - here are some ideas and suggestions for improvement. I will keep thinking about this problem. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots of MOS issues with the article (in addition to the other problems).
 * There are many names bolded in the lead that should not be - see WP:ITALICS.
 * The article is overlinked in places, or has links to dabs - Nibiru is linked to the dab Nibiru and to Nibiru (hypothetical planet) (itself a redirect) in just the lead. Planet X is linked to the FA Planets beyond Neptune, which is a great article and says Planet X cannot exist, but makes no mention of these kind of modern odd theories. Similarly Wormwood links to Wormwood (star), which is an OK article, but again makes no mention of this theory.
 * There are a lot of short paragraphs (one or two sentences) that need to be combined with others for improved flow, or perhaps expanded.
 * The references are a mess - most of them are to ZetaTalk itself, not to independent third-party sources. I agree that most of the current refs do not seem to meet WP:RS and there is not sufficient information given for several refs (current ref 11 has no publisher and seems to in no way meet WP:RS).
 * I think the main problem with the article is that most of it is not about the ZetaTalk webpage itself, but rather on aspects of the 2012 Doomsday prediction. My guess is that one way to deal with this article would be to trim it down so it is just about the webpage, and put a notice pointing to the 2012 Doomsday prediction article at the top of page - currently it is in the section of the web page's ideas and a see also (another MOS issue).
 * The New York Times mentioned ZetaTalk briefly in 1997 - see here, There are some serious books that mention the website briefly - see this in "Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases".
 * Perhaps another way to go with this would be to move this article to something like 2012 Doomsday predictions on the web or 2012 Doomsday predictions in popular culture or something similar, then have a section on ZetaTalk, a section on Hercolubus, a section on the Project Camelot website, etc. followed by debunkers and their evidence.
 * I think for reporting claims made by Lieder or others on or about ZetaTalk, it is OK to use ZetaTalk as a source. My guess is the refutations section would be much better referenced than the claims made part. Since this seems to be tied into the Mayan 2012 stuff, making this part of a larger article might be easier to treat too.
 * As for ways to defuse ridiculous claims, I think putting several mutually contradictory claims in one article helps show their goofiness. The history of the website (2003, no 2010, no 2012, it is all white lies) helps t00. There are lots of reliable refutation sources out there - see the FAQs at NASA's Ask an Astrobiologist web site, for one. CNN had article on 2012 that refutes the claims too - see here. Also realize that nothing would dissuade some true believers.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that making this a redirect to the 2012 article is probably the best way to go. It would be easier to keep an eye on one article on all these theories than a bunch of little articles. The other option as I see it is to make this very strictly on just the website and its history and then pruning all the extraneous stuff - if applied strictly this would probably leave only a stub on just the website, with links to the 2012 article and perhaps see alsos. Just my two cents, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point there, and under other circumstances I would certainly do that. But there are a number of hiccups in trying to do that with this particular theory, the biggest of which is that it really doesn't have anything to do with 2012; it just became associated with 2012 because someone decided it should be. And also, this theory as picked up so many different associations (from Planet X to Eris to Nibiru), that dealing with each individually requires some care; so I daren't remove any info from this page.  Serendi pod ous  12:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I see your point but was hoping to simplify things by a merge. Oh well. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell more or less ,I'll use there own words,
 * The fight the bad service to self aliens
 * From what I can tell more or less ,I'll use there own words, 24.220.171.167 (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The pole shifts causing extinction is there main premise and helping ppl to maximize human potential for the betterment of mankind before it's to late is there premise 24.220.171.167 (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)