Talk:Anunnaki
|
This Pseudohistory related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
... the eff?[edit]
... the eff? 
15:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, found out what they are. 15:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- On mission (David Icke and Zecharia Sitchin love these guys in particular), but the article is ass. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention Nibiru just awfully written. 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not to mention Nibiru just awfully written.
- On mission (David Icke and Zecharia Sitchin love these guys in particular), but the article is ass. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Star Trek[edit]
Don't know how to google this, but Picard mentioned the Annuki to some people who "spoke only in metaphore". It's trivial, but hell anything mentioning piccard and ST's abuse of language is good. ;-) j/k of course.
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 15:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Scooby Doo[edit]
Scooby-Doo: Mystery Incorporated makes the claim that the Annunaki were responsible for Scooby-Doo's ability to talk. I'm not sure where or how to add this, but it's hilarious. 174.141.207.189 (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The Anunnaki are already among us![edit]
See here Did US Forces Flee from Anunnaki Extraterrestrials in Syria? or here Putin Recruits Steven Seagal to Fight Anunnaki for detail. Oc Trump and Putin are fighting them. One of our most idiotic cranks in Germany features these stories prominently in his blog. Just when you think it can not get any weirder.Roll.christian (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Presumptuousness is not rational[edit]
 "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
|
|---|
|
The article begins with apparent presumption by saying "The Anunnaki are mythological beings mentioned in Middle Eastern and Mesopotamian mythology,...". The IMPRESSION of this language is not what might be had in academia, but impresses upon impressionable readers the idea that the Anunnaki were FICTIONAL beings. This positive-claim is almost certainly presumption, and is unproven; it is clear bias; and it is not rational to represent presumption or bias or opinion as FACT. That practice is considered to be not honest. It doesn't stop there. It says "Appeal to cranks", clearly representing bias. And then it says "Stolen fantasy", which sounds like it could very well be an accusation of theft that perhaps could or should get rationalwiki to be sued for libel. For an organization that posits itself as a bastion of rationality (or truth), this is reprehensible and disgusting to find. It makes it Opinion-biased-opinion based-on-incredulity Wiki. It's just gross to people of rationality. Misty mhr (talk) 09:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) |