Sirians was nominated fordeletion.The discussion was closed on15 March 2009 with a consensus tomerge. Its contents weremerged intoThe Sirius Mystery. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please seeits history; for its talk page, seehere.

This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you canjoin the project anddiscuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation. To improve this article, please refer to therelevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook ParanormalMid‑importance This article falls under the scope ofWikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to theparanormal andrelated topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help withcurrent tasks, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

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, Articlehttp://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html

The Dogon Mysteryauthor Erich von DänikenLegendary Times2005

The 23 PhenomenonRobert Anton WilsonFortean Times UKhttp://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.Spazure09:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article, that is about the bookThe 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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archivehttps://www.webcitation.org/6ESXHPjkp?url=http://www.ramtops.co.uk/dogon.html tohttp://www.ramtops.co.uk/dogon.html
• Added archivehttps://www.webcitation.org/6ESXBTTMa?url=http://www.philipcoppens.com/dogonshame.html tohttp://www.philipcoppens.com/dogonshame.html
• Corrected formatting/usage forhttp://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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

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

These edits are hopelesslyWP:FRINGE and notWP:NPOV. Please read our policies. Thanks -LuckyLouie (talk)17:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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^talk21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)— Precedingundated comment added15:39, 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 forSpringer 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]

This is false and misleading. Temple is Visiting Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at Tsinghua University in Beijing and has been a reviewer for Nature and The New Scientist.

It is not pseudoscientific to make controversial and unpopular claims - if it was, Galileo would be pseudoscientific - and the majority of Temple’s claims in the books are not falsifiable anyway.2A02:9B0:4017:AAF2:8805:A517:7BA4:536D (talk)21:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a good thing nobody claimed it ispseudoscientific to make controversial and unpopular claims, isn't it? ReadGalileo Gambit andStrawman argument.

We do not even call the book pseudoscientific, as the first IP claimed. We say it supports a pseudoscientific idea. That the idea is pseudoscientific is well-sourced, seeAncient astronauts. There is no good evidence that aliens have visited us at any point in time, and that is consensus within science.

I deleted your other contribution here, which was baseless conspiracy mongering and does not belong on this page because the purpose of this page is improving the article using reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk)06:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by129.232.16.216 (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]

• C-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles
• C-Class paranormal articles
• Mid-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles