I didn't want to bring this up, because I was afraid I would lose whatever friends I have made here over the last few years if I did. I currently am the main editor of Wikipedia's article on Nancy's planet, a phenomenon which has, in recent years, become quite the cultural monster. Long after everyone's forgotten who Nancy Lieder was, and long after poor Sitchin has dragged his frail frame through another 2-hour talk to distance himself from her claims, and, I think, long after 2010, 2012 or whichever end date du jour happens to pass, Planet X, aka Nibiru aka Wormwood aka Nemesis aka Eris aka whatever will still be on its eternal path to almost hit Earth. It has gone beyond all rationality now. The number of webpages that mention Nibiru or Planet X and 2012 is now pushing half a million.

I didn't want to get involved. Quite frankly I'd had enough after 2003, when this was all supposed to be over anyway. I'd let Nancy's wikipage rot and took it off my watchlist. But then weird things started to happen. Pages I was working on started to get anonymous additions about the approach of Nibiru (which seems to have overtaken "Planet X" as the preferred name for this object). Old redirects I hadn't tested in years suddenly were filled with reams of unsourced information on the coming apocalypse. So, unwisely, I decided to do something about it. I changed the article's title from "ZetaTalk" to "Nibiru collision" (a change that resulted in a short edit war between myself and Nancy) and created a forest of new redirects. even having one unfortunate soul translate an article from German. All this was simply to delineate the proper distinctions between the Nibiru of Babylonian myth, the Nibiru of Sitchin (who, whatever you may think of him, doesn't deserve to spend his final years being blamed for an end of the world he never predicted) and the Nibiru of Nancy. As a result, within two months the page's hit count rose tenfold from ~300 to ~3000 a day. I was beginning to think I'd hit a seam.

Anyway, why am I telling you this? Good question. I'm not sure I know, perhaps just because I haven't had the opportunity to tell this to anyone and I need to vent. It's been a stressful few months. But I do really need your help. There is a tension you see, between Wikipedia pedantry, which defines a topic as "notable" depending on the number of "reliable" sources it contains, and what is actually of note in that strange shadowplay we call cyberspace, where the ramblings of one fantasy prone middle-aged frump can balloon into a global apocalypse panic based on, well, nothing. "Reliable" sources don't want to touch this topic with a ten-foot pole; they'd far rather get things wrong then go into any detail. The only people I've encountered who have challenged Nancy's claims in any robust fashion have been dear old Phil and the much put upon NASA astrobiologist David Morrison, who is one of the few people on the web who has praised my work to date, albeit unwittingly, for which I am grateful.

What I need, because I cannot find them, are reliable sources (that is, sources from accredited organisations) that specifically debunk Nancy's claims in detail. In particular I need a reliable source that shows that nothing can cause the Earth to stop rotating and start again, but any other scientific refutations would be great. Keep in mind, though, that any such refutation has to specifically mention Nibiru, or technically I am committing what Wikipedists call an "unpublished synthesis", effectively writing an essay.

I know by placing these demands on you I'm coming across as a total **** and I'm sorry, but then, Wikiepdia is like that.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

I would rephrase the last para/sentence, regardless of how you feel... if I were you....

__________________
clear skies

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. CARL SAGAN

Mak: Pass the pepperoni please.
Fazor: "Hail, Bautainia! We pledge our hearts to thee! Science and woo, some babbling too, and astron-oh-meee!"
slang: And it made ash out of yew and tree.

What exactly would be needed for the source to qualify? If someone is a member of some scientific organization and writes up a brief essay about why this sort of thing is nonsense, is that good enough? Or would it specifically have to have that organization's seal of approval, by being published in their journal, appearing on their website, or something like that?

If the latter, that might be a bit tough. I have difficulty imagining any scientific organization is going to publish an article in their journal showing that a rogue planet is not going to destroy the earth in 2012, or whatever it is that is being debunked.

But I would echo mahesh's comment, they're rather prickly about that sort of thing here.

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

I don't think I could ever find a scientific paper on this, but something along the lines of Phil's old Bad Astronomy page would be great.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

What about madsci.org or JREF or Penn and Teller's tv show as sources?

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau