Talk:The Sirius Mystery

Sirians was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 March 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into The Sirius Mystery. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Paranormal Mid‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some help with sourcing..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2754524

http://chandra.harvard.edu/chronicle/0400/sirius_part2.html

UFOs and Outer Space Mysteries Donning Press, 1982 by James Oberg

I. Ridpath (1978): "Investigating the Sirius ‘Mystery’", Skeptical Inquirer Magazine, Article http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html

The Dogon Mystery author Erich von Däniken Legendary Times 2005

The 23 Phenomenon Robert Anton Wilson Fortean Times UK http://www.forteantimes.com/features/commentary/396/the_23_phenomenon.html

http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/archives/Dogon.shtml

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0644/98007783-t.html

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/03/21.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s148930.htm

http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/6.htm

This should help with fact verification/cites/determining notability. Note that not all are "reliable sources" themselves, but seem to point down a rabbit hole that may lead to more good sources. Spazure 09:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Article?

Why is this article, that is about the book The Sirius Mystery, spends most of its entry debunking the book? Is this how an encyclopedia should be? 76.20.197.63 (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Sirius Mystery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ESXHPjkp?url=http://www.ramtops.co.uk/dogon.html to http://www.ramtops.co.uk/dogon.html
Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6ESXBTTMa?url=http://www.philipcoppens.com/dogonshame.html to http://www.philipcoppens.com/dogonshame.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

These edits are hopelessly WP:FRINGE and not WP:NPOV. Please read our policies. Thanks - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Robert K. G. Temple into The Sirius Mystery

Aside from self-published author page, no in-depth biographical information from independent secondary sources available to construct an NPOV BLP. Subject's book is more notable than the author. LuckyLouie (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: let this biographical entry stand - Aboudaqn (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no bio for this person. To keep we would need for there to be enough information to fill out a page just about him, not the Sirius Mystery. Sgerbic (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is nothing the article could contain. He is the author of something, period. That's not an article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree His book about China is good, if somewhat pro-Chinese. If Temple or his publishers were behind the author page they aren't doing a very good job. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really is the fault of Temple and his publishers that they didn't promote the book. There are zero secondary sources that mention it. WP:NAUTHOR anyone? - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I redirected the author's article to this page. This has been stale since August and I have to say there have been no policy-based arguments for keeping the author article. In my view, it is an example of a non-notable author writing a notable book, and the oppose votes did not voice any policy reasons for keeping a standalone article. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can one non-peer reviewed book discredit another?

In the first section, the book is labeled "pseudo-scientific", but the citation is just to another book. Why the preference in assigning authority from one author over another? 107.13.52.124 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Martin's Press has no reputation of publishing science books, and there is no reason to assume that "The Sirius Mystery" had an editor familiar with scientific procedures. The opposite is true for Springer Publishing. Also, Temple has no scientific background while "Andrew May has a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University and a PhD in astrophysics from Manchester University" [1]. On top of that, as you can see from the article, Ian Ridpath, Carl Sagan and James Oberg, all more reputable than Temple, also see very little value in Temple's ideas. It is very obvious that May's assessment is the conensus among those scientists who are interested in pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply racist Wikipedia

Hmmm, so the knowledge of the Dogon could only have come from European explorers, with their bibles in hand and pith helmets on head. The blackies in their grass skirts and cultural infancy can only have kind of picked things up as they earnestly absorbed everything that the whities gave them.

You are racist scum. Trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.232.16.216 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with bibles of pith helmets, rather with high-resolution telescopes which are needed for that specific knowledge about Sirius and which the Dogon did not have at the time. Simple logic, not racism. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]