Talk:Chariots of the Gods?/Archive 1

Archive 1

Turkish map

Hello, I was wondering if any of you had any info on that Turkish map showing the Earth from space?

That is the 'Piri Reis' map, there are many references on the Internet, including Wikipedia.

Yes, I do. There is a picture in the book itself and if you ask me it is pretty realistic and i could infact belve it if it wasn't for this nagging thing called logic which keeps distracting me.

Logic is just fine ;-) Check Steven Dutch (on cartographical questions) or Walter Hain (on the history of non-scientific "research"; in German) on the subject. The map is extraordinary - but entirely terrestrial, and entirely 16th century. Jonas 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric von Fraud

I believe the book was originally titled 'Chariots of the Gods', then renamed with the '?' tacked onto the end. Apparently, this was due to a Euro-Court ruling that says you can't publish bullshit as fact. So, the addition of the question mark made it 'legal'.

I've also heard that photos in the book show a huge stone stairwell turned upside down, with the associated caption saying "What titanic forces caused this object to be flipped on it's back?" Those forces were....he printed the picture upside down.

And finally, there are photos of cave-paintings from Iraq with a 'man with a space-helmet'. It seems that Eric went into this cave, and scrated the helmet onto the ancient drawing (supposedly there is an outstanding arrest warrent in Iraq for him).

Some citations for those statements would be nice! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chariots Of The Gods.jpg

Image:Chariots Of The Gods.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

National Lampoon

FWIW, there was an article in the National Lampoon entitled 'Hot Rods of the Gods' LorenzoB (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Inspiration

The article says : It also served as inspiration for the original TV series Battlestar Galactica, ...the feature film Stargate ... the Halo games.

I gotta call BS on that one. Unless the Halo developers said they got the idea from Chariots of the Gods, it needs to be removed. We can't assume the Halo developers lifted the idea from this guy since that might make the game designers legally culpable. Do we have proof they got the idea from him? I doubt it. Someone with more skill than me needs to remove the above passage from the article.

Technically it might take a court of law to prove that the writers of BSG, Stargate, and Halo took the idea from this guy. I suspect the above mentioned writers would argue they came up with their ideas themselves. -- Gamma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.204.215 (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop this please?

This is aimed at both of you who are busy reverting each other. If this continues, it will end in tears or a protected page. Dougweller (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an editor out there intent on making unjustified deletions of pertinent content supported by responsible citations that fall into accepted Wikipedia guidelines. Someone has to make a stand. The editor making the deletions has not got a case. Things have moved on from the video to Der Spiegel. I have supplied in a footnote the relevant part from the Der Spiegel article relating to how Chariots was re-written. Lung salad (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And the article makes clear that it was normal editing, and you still have not given any RS for who the mystery real author is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It was extensive word-for-word editing. The De Spiegel article refers to a letter EvD wrote to the publishers specifying this. De Spiegel names the author, the same name provided by Peter Krassa, EvD's biographer. Lung salad (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He was hired by the publisher. Publishers' generally hire editors. Der Spiegel can be used to state he was an editor (curiously enough, editors edit! - which means "rewriting" I suppose, but the English term for such a person is Editor.) deWiki uses the term "Bearbeiter" which means (surprise!) "Editor." Which means you can reasonably use Der Spiegel to state that Utermann edited the book. "Gone With the Wind" was edited word by word, as are almost all published books - even those by famus writers. Cheers = now just say "edited" and recognize that this is what the English term is for what Utermann did. Collect (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes hired by the publisher at the author's request and any film made that involves more than one director is a collaboration, which means it's something different. Utz Utermann put EvD's ideas into prose. Edited word-by-word means rewritten. Lung salad (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note [1] [2] etc. do not credit anyone other than EvD as "Autor". No "Utz Utermann" credit for EvDs work on Amazon. If the initial editions give Rogersdorf zero writing credit on it (the first edition I can find is for a "joined edition" in the 1970s), then asserting he was the initial co-author is not borne out by the evidence of the published book. Cheers. How long can you try asserting that Roggersdorf was anything other than what is commonly called "Editor"? Collect (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Chariots of the Gods was extensively rewritten. Not edited. Period. The citation is Der Spiegel. Lung salad (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And if you're concerned about translation, Ronald Story uses the explicit phrase "extensively rewritten" when using Der Spiegel as a source in his 1976 book. Your new reason for deleting this information with Story as a source is because you consider the sentence "The work as published is said to have been extensively rewritten by Roggersdorf" to be merely a "rumour"? --McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Another comment: There are several different Spiegel stories about Däniken and Chariots of the Gods online. The one I listed above, [3] explicitly calls Roggersdorf a co-author. Others call him a "Bearbeiter", but mention that he receives 3% of royalties on the book, while Däniken received 7%. The term " Bearbeiter" is fairly generic ("a person who works on something"). It's not necessarily the same as "editor", which usually is translated as "Herausgeber". But anyways, we have the one Spiegel article, which is a reliable source, for the "co-author" claim. There also is a biography on Däniken co-authored (no pun ;-) by Roggersdorf that might be useful (but that I don't have access to): Peter Rocholl, Wilhelm Roggersdorf: Das seltsame Leben des Erich von Dänike. Econ Verlag Düsseldorf, 1970. There are also at least 3 other biographies of Däniken, published 1976, 1995 and 2003. These would probably be very useful sources for this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that Utermann is not listed as "Autor" and that "Bearbeiter" is an "Editor." Editors can, and do, recieve royalties if their contract with the publisher so states. The biography for which Utermann has Auto credit is clearly a case of co-authorship with whoever else is listed. As for the "extensively rewritten" the Soiegel article Lung gave states "to prepare for publication" which is not the sense of "writing and creating the book" but in the sense of "fixing" the book. All I state is that "edited" is NPOV, and borne out by the sources, that "science fiction author" is not borne out by sources, and that much of the other material in the edits is not borne out by RS sources at all as worded. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite get your point. The Spiegel article, a reliable secondary source, clearly names Roggersdorf as a co-author (the German term "Ko-Autor" should be understandable even for non-native speakers). You seem to rely on the that Roggersdorf is not listed on the front page of the book. But he is e.g. listed (for the first edition) in WorldCat. Erinnerungen an die Zukunft was published in 1968, before the Berne convention made clear(er) indication of authorship mandatory. You seem to apply original research to a primary source to contradict the Spiegel article. As for the SF theme, at least I agree that Roggersdorf/Utermann should not be characterised as an SF author unless there are reliable secondary sources supporting that explicitly. He has written quite some pulp, but I don't think SF was a big part of that. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"Is said to have" is precisely and exactly a "rumour" - it does not say "was" but uses the anonymous source wording of "is said to have been." Clear? Collect (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that Story is citing Der Spiegel for this exact sentence, it seems just as plausible that he means "is said by Der Spiegel to have" or "is said by a named person interviewed by Der Spiegel" and he didn't want to bog down the flow of his text. --McGeddon (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. We can only "assume" what is in the piece cited. We can not "assume" that used "It has been said" to mean any specific person stated something as a citable fact. If one wishes to state a fact one does not say "It has been said that ..." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Der Spiegel article, I think (but can't be sure) that it makes a direct statement about this, so Story probably did mean "is said by Der Spiegel to have". Do we have any fluent German speakers who can translate the paragraph for us, or should we request a third party to take a look? --McGeddon (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is Stephen's translation, cannot argue about the references to re-writing:

"He [the publisher] did that much: He had the little work rewritten -- by the writer Wilhelm Utermann, who lived in Roggersdorf near Munich, and, who, having worked as a screen writer and movie producer in the 50s, knew the taste of the public. Utermann, under the alias Roggersdorf, "reworked", as Däniken complained in a letter to the publisher, "every single sentence", to make the book fit for printing."

Lung salad (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing and rewriting

Editing and rewriting are two different things. Lung salad (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. See Editor, Wiktionary:Editor, dictionary defintions for Editor and editing. Rewriting is an //intrinsic part// of the editing process. I fear this is a significant problem here - that you do not realize they are related, whilst they are absolutely entwined.

2.A person who works for a publisher, commissioning or preparing material for publication.

One who edits, especially as an occupation.

(Communication Arts / Journalism & Publishing) a person who edits written material for publication

someone who puts text into appropriate form for publication

And "Bearbeiten" means - "to edit" <g>.

Note also that we are "editors" on Wikipedia, and not "Authors." Collect (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If sources are giving some explicit weight to the idea that Roggersdorf had to rewrite "every sentence" of the manuscript to make it publishable, then we shouldn't ignore that just because rewriting sentences is part of an editor's job. --McGeddon (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- have you ever met a professional editor? It is common to fix a manuscript to make it "ready for publication." Really. And we still need a transcript for most of the claim in any case. Meanwhile, I take it that "science fiction author" is not accepted here as a claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

"science fiction author" is ancient history and has been succeeded by the citation from Der Spiegel. This is a legitimate edit meeting Wikipedia guidelines. The reference is to rewriting when read within the context of the whole paragraph and this is different from editing. Lung salad (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand the job of an editor. If three sources thought it worth specifically mentioning that von Daniken's book had to be "extensively rewritten" before publication (and the editors of each source didn't cut the line for being a laughable truism about the nature of editing), though, this suggests Wikipedia could also benefit from mentioning it, to give the reader a greater understanding of how the book was written. I could understand wariness of the source if we thought that Der Spiegel was deliberately misrepresenting the job of an editor to make von Daniken sound bad ("his editor had to correct his spelling and number the pages for him!") - obviously I can't judge the tone of voice of a German source text, but do you think this is the case? --McGeddon (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is the translation of the relevant paragraph from Der Spiegel:

He [von Däniken] only did so much himself. He got Wilhelm Utermann, a writer living in Roggersdorf near Munich who was familiar with popular taste from his work as a scriptwriter and film producer during the 1950s, to recast the work for him. Utermann (alias Roggersdorf) "reworked every sentence", as von Däniken himself sneered in a letter to his publisher, "to get the manuscript just right for the printer." Lung salad (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be a different source to the one I'm looking at. The apparently relevant paragraph of this 1969 Der Spiegel article says "Erst als Däniken dem Verleger mitteilte, daß Raketenbauer Wernher von Braun die Möglichkeit einer Astronauten-Invasion in grauer Vorzeit nicht ausschließe, engagierte Wehrenalp den Schriftsteller Wilhelm Roggersdorf als Ko-Autor, der das Manuskript "total umschrieb", wie das mit dem Econ-Verlag liierte "Handelsblatt" vermerkte.", which seems to have quite a different structure - even with my rudimentary German and a Babelfish translation, it doesn't appear to allude to the 1950s, or to von Daniken sneering in a letter. I could be wrong, but are we working from different sources here? --McGeddon (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah! There are two sources. There's also this article from March 1973 which corresponds to the above translation, and uses the phrase "jeden Satz wieder durch" to describe the depth of Roggendorf's editing. Both of those fragments seem useful, but we should get a second opinion from a native German speaker, given that there is some contention over the exact translation of the phrase and its context (of whether Der Spiegel are making the allegation, or merely mentioning a widespread rumour). --McGeddon (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The translation of the relevant paragraph from the 1969 Der Spiegel article:

It was only when Von Däniken informed the publisher that the rocket-scientist Wernher von Braun did not exclude the possibility of the Earth having been invaded by astronauts in distant prehistory that Wehrenalp engaged the writer Wilhelm Roggersdorf [sic] as co-author. The latter then "completely recast" the manuscript, as the trade-paper Handelsblatt which is associated with the Econ-Verlag publishing house noted. Lung salad (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an alternative (but essentially identical in meaning) translation of these section above. The only beef I have with yours is that the Handelsblatt is not a trade paper, but rather a leading business newspaper (comparable in type, if not in international reach, with e.g. the Financial Times). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is my take on the 1973 Spiegel article Botschaft vom Unbekannten: The relevant passage in the original reads "Nur so viel tat er: Er ließ das Werkchen umschreiben -- von Wilhelm Utermann, einem in Roggersdorf nahe München lebenden Schriftsteller. der als Drehbuchautor und Filmproduzent der fünfziger Jahre den Publikumsgeschmack kannte. Utermann alias Roggersdorf "arbeitete", wie sich Däniken in einem Brief an seinen Verleger mokierte, "jeden Satz wieder durch", um das Manuskript überhaupt druckreif zu machen". In English, that is He [the publisher] did that much: He had the little work rewritten -- by the writer Wilhelm Utermann, who lived in Roggersdorf near Munich, and, who, having worked as a screen writer and movie producer in the 50s, knew the taste of the public. Utermann, under the alias Roggersdorf, "reworked", as Däniken complained in a letter to the publisher, "every single sentence", to make the book fit for printing. There is a connotation in the paragraph that is somewhat hard to capture in English. The diminutive "Werkchen", which I translated as "little work" implies "less than a full work". -- Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is such "reworking" (I used "fix" in my own mental translation) more akin to editing or akin to full ghostwriting? I aver that I have known editors, and authors always complain about all their words being changed <g>. Danke. Collect (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I would add that "wie sich Däniken ... mokierte" doesn't mean "complaining", but rather mocking, jesting (which of course can be an indirect form of complaint, but need not be). --Jonas kork (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not wrong, but in this context, I think "complained" is a better translation. "Ridiculed" would also capture the sense, but, for some reason, does not seem idiomatic to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Utz Utermann/Wilhelm Roggersdorf

In an attempt to minimize confusion, here is some information on Utermann (mostly from de: Utz Utermann, so take it with the usual grain of salt).

• He was born in 1912 as Wilhelm Utermann. He lived much of his life in Roggersdorf (near Munich), where he also died in 1991.
• He used the name Utz Utermann during most of his life.
• As an author, he also used the names Wilhelm Roggersdorf (which appears as "Bearbeiter" in "Erinnerungen an die Vergangenheit") and Mathias Racker.
• During the Nazi regime, he worked as a journalist, editor (for the Völkischer Beobachter), editor in chief (for the periodicals of the Hitler Youth), playwright, and script writer.
• After the war he first worked as a journalist, then, from 1950 to 1964 as a movie producer and script writer.
• Starting in 1964, he concentrated on writing, using the Roggersdorf and later the Racker pseudonyms.

I hope this helps. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

IOW, calling him a "science fiction writer" fails [[This is ancient history and the argument progressed to something else Lung salad (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)]], and as he is officially the "Bearbeiter" for the CotG book, that term or a proper English translation thereof would be proper along with the original German word? Thanks! Collect (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your latest edit is the start towards a good compromise. Given that at least one Spiegel article explicitly calls Roggersdorf a "co-author", and that the translation of "Bearbeiter" as "editor" is somewhat problematic, I'd suggest to simplify the sentence further to "Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past (German: Erinnerungen an die Zukunft: Ungelöste Rätsel der Vergangenheit) is a book authored in 1968 by Erich von Däniken (with Wilhelm Roggersdorf)", thus sidesteping the exact description of Roggersdorf's/Utermann's role. I would also prefer to use the pseudonym, since that is the name listed on the cover. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The word 'rewritten' is crucial as the articles in Der Spiegel referred to "reworked every sentence" (1973) and "completely recast the manuscript" (1969), which is something more than 'editing'. Lung salad (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell Stephan to retranslate the tranlation he gives above. I trust it, as I strongly suspect he might be German <g>. And again I would note that many authors carp about their editors "reworking" their golden prose - but for some odd reason, copyright law seems to give the credit for the work to the original author. Cheers - but let's stick to what a German says the article says on this one. Collect (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors do the rewriting. There's no such job description as a "rewriter". This is how it works. The editors name is always found on the book contract because for some reason he wants to get paid for his work. Lung salad (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In America editors have separate contracts - here [4] and here [5]. Probably the same in Germany, but could be different. It's up to between the parties concerned in some countries how things are arranged. Lung salad (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We know Utermann was hired by the publisher, the contract does not seem to be available, so there is no way of knowing exactly how it was worded, and it is not up to us to assume anything else - which is exactly how American publishers work with "editors." Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

We know the book was rewritten by editor Utz Uttermann. Cheers. Lung salad (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephan's translation refers to rewriting:

"He [the publisher] did that much: He had the little work rewritten -- by the writer Wilhelm Utermann, who lived in Roggersdorf near Munich, and, who, having worked as a screen writer and movie producer in the 50s, knew the taste of the public. Utermann, under the alias Roggersdorf, "reworked", as Däniken complained in a letter to the publisher, "every single sentence", to make the book fit for printing." Lung salad (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of putting into brackets in the header that "Chariots" was edited, since all books are edited. The whole point behind mentioning Utermann in the first place is over the issue of rewriting. And the issue is a question of trust - can we trust the German reviewers and critics who have claimed since the 1960s that "Chariots" was rewritten. Lung salad (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And what would be the purpose of "rewritten" either in that case? I would not object if Utermann were not mentioned at all, but if he is to be mentioned it is essential that the mention be accurate. And for that purpose "edited" is precisely an accurate word choice. And again you insist on "rewritten" when Stephan's translation does not so claim - but "reworked" is precisely in accord with the work of a Bearbeiter, that is to say, editing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my translation says "rewritten": "He [the publisher] did that much: He had the little work rewritten -- by the writer Wilhelm Utermann,[...]", where "rewritten" is the English for German "umschreiben". Note that there are two different Spiegel articles referenced in this discussion. The 1969 article uses the words "co-author" and "completely rewrote", the 1973 article uses the words "rewritten -- by the writer Wilhelm Utermann" and "reworked every single sentence" (quoting Däniken for the second phrase). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would the reviewers and critics of Chariots mention Utermann if he only merely edited the book? Surely the whole point behind mentioning it was because of EvD not being a wordsmith and the job of rewriting. Ronald Story cited both Der Spiegel articles referred to above when he wrote about Chariots, "The work as published is said to have been extensively rewritten by Roggersdorf" (The Space Gods Revealed). Lung salad (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Many book reviews and articles name the editor. Sorry - but this is looking like your only aim is to get your specific translation of an article into this BLP. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] ad infinitum. Note the "Diary of Anne Frank" where the editor was actually very well-known - and is not mentioned in the WP article at all. And that book was extensively edited. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, I don't see any evidence that Lung Salad is rejecting all other editors' translations. As User:Stephan Schulz says above, "rewritten" is his translation as well as Lung Salad's. It'd be good to get Stephan's take on "total umschrieb" as well, though, which I don't think we've had yet.

The Anne Frank example is noted, but as you've said yourself, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --McGeddon (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

LS made an assertion that people would not mention anyone who merely edits a book. It is therefore completely proper for me to show that it not only occurs, it is actually fairly common. The essay you cite is completely on a different topic from people answering an assertion made by an editor here as to how sources regard editors of books. "Rewriting" is, by the way, a very typical task for an "editor" - is there any concrete reason for holding on to that word? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That you can point to an article whose well-known editor goes unmentioned in the current version does not show that it is Wikipedia policy to never mention editors, even when they extensively rewrite a work. The reason for discussing whether to hold onto the word "rewriting" is that it seems to be preceded in this case by the word "completely" - if four separate sources thought this worth mentioning, Wikipedia should also consider it. --McGeddon (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Stephan has already translated "umschrieb" as "rewritten". We have the 1969 article using the term "total umschrieb" in quotemarks - do any fluent German speakers disagree with translating this as to say that the book was "completely rewritten" (or to use the phrase Ronald Story uses when citing this Der Spiegel article, "extensively rewritten")? --McGeddon (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem with "rewritten" as long as it makes clear that Utermann was the Editor, and not the original Author. None of the sources indicate in any manner whatsoever that Utermann generated the book content as such, nor that the book as copyrighted and issued gives him any status as an author of it. Done? Collect (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I just was asking fluent German speakers to comment on a fair translation of the adverb "total". --McGeddon (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've translated "total umschrieb" as "completely rewrote" above, but "totally rewrote" would be equally valid. One of the differences between German and English is that in German the adjective and adverb forms are only minimally different. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A German eliding a definite article? You could be forced to use Swiss German! Collect (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Who said Utermann was the original author? How does "rewrite" equate with that? Lung salad (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Who said it? [12] His first book, Chariots of the Gods?, had been published by the time of his trial (having been ghostwritten by a science fiction author) seems like someone asserted it as a fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps bringing up ancient history and ignoring amended improvements. Living in Germany, with access to archives, it could be checked if Utermann wrote any science fiction in his life, and where the documentary makers got the idea from to use that wording. Anyway, it was most helpful finding the original PDF format Der Spiegel articles. Lung salad (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you had simply accepted my first position, all of this would not have happened - but it took quite a while for you to accept that the rewriting was done by an editor hired by the publisher - which is a far cry from your original stance that it was "ghostwritten by a science fiction writer" entirely. Or totally. Or completely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We cleared up the "ghostwritten" misunderstanding on the EvD article in a couple of hours, with collegiate discussion and without your help - your first position on the matter seems to have been a crack about Gone With the Wind at the end of the thread. Other editors are clearly concerned enough about BLP to make sure that an unsourced "von Daniken did not write this book" wouldn't stand. --McGeddon (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue was whether the rewriting was a normal function of an editor - and your position was less than helpful in this. Stephan seems to have been the most understanding that "Bearbeiter" is an "editor" and not a "ghostwriter". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Each situation is different. Normal function could mean anything. Lung salad (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "rewritten" has finally been accepted. Lung salad (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

With the word "editor" which was your major stumbling block. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, "rewritten by editor" is no stumbling block. Lung salad (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This appears, then, to be a solid consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of "this" leaves something to be desired. And tentative, limited agreement by two editors, with apparently at least 3 opposed, does not make "solid consensus". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

IOW,. the concept of consensus is totally lacking here. Cheers. That ois not how Wikipedia is supposed to function. Collect (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It may surprise you, but consensus is not short for "COllect's Neverfailing SENSe of Unmitigated Superiority" ;-). I count at least 3-4 editors who seem to be fine with the current version, and only you opposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A wondrous display of WP:CIVIL indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"extensively rewritten"

Is a contnetious claim with WP:BLP implications. It is not properly sourced, nor is much of the strongly POV material added properly sourced per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Per discussion at RS/N, there is nothing in the bfi cite to support the claims made for it, no transcript for the video has been given, and the "quote" asserted to be from that video does not support the claims asserted to be supported by it ("foster father" or the like != a source for asserting "extensively rewritten" etc.). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference included a direct quotation, and User:Lung salad had already quoted the relevant section over at Talk:Erich_von_Däniken#Ghostwritten. I'm not sure what your "foster father" line is about, as the documentary simply has the narrator asserting that the book was rewritten by a former science fiction author. The BFI link is clearly intended to give the reader further information about the documentary, rather than being presented as the entire source.

Either way, the assertion that the book was heavily rewritten before publication was made in Ronald Story's book, as I'd already said at Talk:Erich_von_Däniken#Ghostwritten. I'll restore it with a cite shortly. --McGeddon (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And since it is normal practice for books to be edited, and the "science fiction author" made no claim as to authorship, that and a dollar will buy a cup of coffee when you recall that WP:BLP applies to both men, and to claims about them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Now bonafide citations meeting Wikipedia guidelines have been provided. All deletions are unjustified. Lung salad (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Except for ones impacting WP:BLP chap. FWIW, it turns out that Gone With the Wind was heavily edited and "rewritten" by Mitchell's husband, and again by the editors at MacMillan. Conflating "edited" with "writing" is a significant charge. And when you rerwrite WP:BLP please tell me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Von Daniken acknowledges and has stated his book was rewritten. The Der Spiegel article mentions a letter from von Daniken to his publisher about the re-writing. Von Daniken is allowed to say all these things but Wikipedia is not? Lung salad (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Find reliable sources for the two individuals who you appear to think wrote the book. AFAICT, EvD thanks his edotor as authors are wont to do, but there is no evidence in any of the sources thus far given to indicate 1. That specific others actually wrote the book ("editing" is not the same as being an author) or 2. That any specific other person has made any claims as to being an author of the book. 3. That EvD has disavowed being th sole credited author of the book. 4. That any new editions after 1999 are around. 4. That Roggersdorf, who is known to be an editor on the book, somehow rewrote the book as well as Utz Utermann. 5. The seeming problem that Wilhelm Utermann lived in Roggersdorf. Which leads one to conclude that all the "sources" manage to completely screw up the facts as to the name of the editor entirely (I suspect it is Wilhelm Utermann, but do not have a RS source for the claim), that the other names are therefore quite errant, and likely simply "stuck in" articles in "Encounter" etc. Collect (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

How can this be taken seriously? This is rambling; it is not a cogent logical argument. Lung salad (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And your post is to be taken seriously when I clearly lay out several distinct problems with your assertions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a 1969 Spiegel article: [13]. It talks about the book and states: "Erst als Däniken dem Verleger mitteilte, daß Raketenbauer Wernher von Braun die Möglichkeit einer Astronauten-Invasion in grauer Vorzeit nicht ausschließe, engagierte Wehrenalp den Schriftsteller Wilhelm Roggersdorf als Ko-Autor, der das Manuskript "total umschrieb", wie das mit dem Econ-Verlag liierte "Handelsblatt" vermerkte.", or, in English: "Only when Däniken told the publisher that that rocket builder Wernher von Braun didn't reject the claim of an astronaut invasion in early pre-history did Wehrenalp hire the writer Wilhelm Roggersdorf as co-autor, who, completely rewrote the manuscript, according to the "Handelsblatt", which is closely connected with the Econ publishing house." Sorry for the clumsy literal translation. Note that the first part ("hired ... as a co-author") is in the Spiegel's own editorial voice, while "completely rewrote" is reported as a claim by the Handelsblatt (which, however, is also a newspaper of repute). Rogersdorf is a pseudonym of Utz Utermann. Utermann had a very wide-ranging career, as journalist, author, editor (during WW2 he was the editor-in-chief for the Nazi Reichsjugendführung, i.e. the Hitler Youth and various related groups), movie producer and actor. As far as I can tell, he may have written some science fiction, but he was most successful with pulp war stories. Calling him a "science fiction author" is a stretch. However, his co-authorship is fairly widely known - he is e.g. listed as co-author on Amazon.de and Worldcat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Which editions of the book specify him as "co-author"? EvD clearly did not hire him - so when the publishing house hires an editor in the US they are usually just considered an editor and not a co-author. Thus in the US a "co-author" is someone specifically credited as such on the title page, and the English editions do not so credit Utermann. Editors and translators are not regarded as "co-author" in the US as a rule, even where they clearly "re-write" the book. Can we get a solid source thereon? I found the claims asserting two differently named people as editor were difficult to accept at best. Meanwhile, how much of the substance of the book is directly attributable to Roggersdorf? Cheers (mein Deutsch ist sehr schlect seit dreissig Jahre). Collect (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel article mentions that EvD did pick him. The credit would not lie in the book but in the book contract. Wilhelm Roggersdorf was the pseudonym of Utz Utermann. We're getting there. Slowly. Lung salad (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See below, and use a German dictionary <g>. If a person is not credited, he is not "co author" and did not "co-write" the book as far as the law is concerned. The source you give can be interpreted to say Utermann edited the book - as that was what the publisher hired him to do. He was not a "science fiction author" for sure, and any other characterization of his work wrt EvD is hitting WP:BLP issues head-on. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's repeat what's given in Der Spiegel - "Chariots" was rewritten by Utz Uternann. If a person is credited in a book contract, he gets paid. Does not matter if the name is not on the book cover. It does not have to be on the cover Lung salad (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Being paid as an editor is what always happens. IT does not mean one is an author of the book And again most books in this world are "extensively rewritten." Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains that Chariots of the Gods was extensively rewritten and the reliable source for that is from Der Spiegel, though Peter Krassa's biography Disciple of the Gods could also be added as confirmation from EvD's camp. Lung salad (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All sources mentioning Wilhelm Roggersdorf say that he had "heavily rewritten" the book or similar, none of them says "edited". i think it's now properly sourced. You can add, for example, the Playboy interview, and there should be reliable books. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the other discussions on this page, and the translations of "Bearbeiter" etc. as well as the consensus that "rewritten by editor" is the WP:CONSENSUS position. In short, the editors here agreed on how to handle this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the editors just agreed that you were right about rewriting being part of an editor's job, and that it was inappropriate for the article to use the term "ghostwritten" (although this was never seriously contested). I don't see a problem with using the phrase "heavily rewritten" if we have four reliable sources that use slight variations on that phrase. If reliable sources find it relevant to record that a book was heavily rewritten rather than lightly or averagely rewritten, it's not unreasonable for Wikipedia to repeat that. --McGeddon (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Aha - do you wish to undo the consensus which was finally reached? I rather think that is not the way to go as "Bearbeiter" absolutely means "editor" and any changes which deny the German word are contrary to Wikipedia policy at that point <g>. Or is the consensus as I understand it reasonable enough for the article? Votre choix. Collect (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure which consensus you're referring to here. You say above that "rewritten by editor" is within consensus (which I agree it is), but have just reverted to remove the word 'rewritten'. Is your objection that we are losing the verb "edit" and falsely implying that Roggersdorf may have been drafted in unrelatedly? Would you have any problems with the sentence "The book was heavily rewritten by its editor, German screenwriter Wilhelm Roggersdorf"? --McGeddon (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "heavily" is disputed, as all books may be "heavily rewiritten" by the editor, and this appears to be use of an adverb not specifically found in the original German in Der Spiegel, is contentious as a claim WRT EvD thus requiring multiple reliable sources for use of the specific word, and is of no specific value to the reader of what is intended to be an article about the book, and not an extensive discussion about the author of the book. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Der Spiegel uses the term "total umschrieb", which a German-speaking editor has translated for us as meaning "totally rewritten" or "completely rewritten". Are you arguing that because Der Speigel says "total", while the Ronald Story book and the Channel Four documentary instead use the English word "extensively", it would be WP:SYN for us to regard the sources as corroborating one another?

I don't think it's of "no specific value" to tell the reader that the final manuscript of a book had to be extensively rewritten before publication. If anything, the article could use some more detail about the genesis of the book (which one source has already talked about being "famously" written late at night while von Däniken was still working as a hotel manager). --McGeddon (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And all of this was extensively discussed on this talk page, with the resulting consensus being "rewritten by the editor." I would trust you would read the discussion just held and abide by the result. Cheers. It is difficult dealing with a consensus when the very day after it is settled someone comes in and gores back to square one. Collect (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to take this forward when an editor objects to certain wordings and then ignores direct questions about his position - from the RFC it seems that you are objecting to the loss of the word "editor", but you haven't taken the time to mention this to anyone before now, even when asked directly in this thread. You're now ignoring a question about the WP:SYN of translation by despairing about consensus. We can only resolve a disagreement by discussing it, I think we'd all appreciate a more focused conversation. --McGeddon (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! The RfC statement is intended to be an absolutely neutral statement of the facts present here. My comments indicate what I feel reliable sources require in an article with WP:BLP implications with regard to EvD. It is true that I did also suggest we use the word "Bearbeiter" in the lede, if you wish to reread all of the discussion, with a parenthetical translation of "editor." Is that your cavil? The purpose of an RfC, by the way, is to obtain outside input and having thousands of words iterated there is guaranteed to keep new voices from entering. I happen to think EvD is "loony" in all likelihood, but that all of the "loony" stuff in CotG was chosen by him, and that his publisher hired an "editor" to make it fit for publication, but that none of the "loony bits" should be laid on Utermann's shoulders - all he did is what editors routinely do - take badly written trash with unusual ideas and make it into a readable mass. This was not "ghostwriting" as no source whatsoever says Utermann did anything substantive in adding content to the "loony" book. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any problem with calling Roggersdorf an "editor" (Story uses the term), but if a German speaker is concerned that we may be using a badly misrepresentative translation, I'm open to finding better sources. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we call Roggersdorf a "ghostwriter", though, and I don't think saying that he "heavily rewrote" the manuscript could be taken as meaning that he ghostwrote the whole thing, or that he took a sober book on archaeology and sexed it up with "loony" theories. If the latter is a concern, it's easy enough to give the reader a little more context about von Däniken's original work. --McGeddon (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Extensively rewritten could also mean what it says with the core ideas and argument being the intellectual property of the author. Some minor portions of the book by EvD may may have remained intact. That does not make Utermann the author, but it could make him the editor who re-wrote the book. Thus not mere editing. Lung salad (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Again the chief oroblem is that you "know" editors do not extensively rewrite material, whilst there are many cites where editors have, indeed, extensively rewritten a book. Including GWTW which was extenisvely rewritten by Mitche;;'s husband, and a great many other works. In short, your absolute statement that editing does not include rewriting fails readily. Collect (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rewritten by editor Utz Utermnann. Lung salad (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Which I thunk we had agreed on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So we have three sources that explicitly describe the manuscript as being (with minor synonyms of the adverb) "extensively rewritten" by Roggersdorf. Leaving aside the raised RFC about whether a consensus for the term "editor" in the lede should extend to the body, does anyone have a strong objection to the article saying that the book was "extensively rewritten by [editor/screenwriter] Wilhelm Roggersdorf"? --McGeddon (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I dispute that Roggersdorf was acting as a "screenwriter" here, but we have sufficient evidence that he was acting as "editor." Further that categorizing him as a "screenwriter" is improper as that was not what he primarily did in his life - he was an editor hired by the publisher to fix a badly-written manuscript. I further aver that "extensively edited" is a far better and more accurate term as we have absolutely nothing to indicate he added any of the anecdotes to the work, only that he made the manuscript fit to be published. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So would "extensively edited by a screenwriter" and "extensively rewritten by its editor" seem about the same in terms of clarity here? I agree that, in the absence of a proven mistranslation, his status as an editor needs to be stressed. --McGeddon (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Roggersdorf is not specifically a "screenwriter" and that is about as misleading as "editor for the Hitler Youth magazine" would be in identifying his role here. BTW, a "books" search finds him described as "editor" far more than as "screenwriter" or the like. When in doubt, use the most common term applied to his profession. E.g.: serialisation by Daniken and his long-standing editor Wilhelm Roggersdorf, RDGGERSDDRF Wilhelm, writer of comedies, novels, essays and film scripts, and so on. We could say "comedy writer" just as accurately as "screenwriter" to be sure - but his function by contract with the publisher was as an editor. Collect (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I say, let's leave aside the RFC about whether he is a "screenwriter" or "editor". I'm just asking how you and other editors feel about the equivalency of the phrases "extensively edited by a screenwriter" and "extensively rewritten by its editor", whichever way the RFC falls. It looks like it might be less confusing to just let the RFC play out first, though. --McGeddon (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Characterization of editor of book

There is a consensus that the lede should state that the book was "rewritten by the editor Utz Utermann." Should this consensus be considered to extend to the body where the sentence reads "heavily rewritten by German screenwriter Wilhelm Roggersdorf"? Collect (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

comments1

• I don't think there ever was such a consensus to begin with. But regardless of this, it's not unusual, and indeed expected that the main section elaborates on the lede. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

comments

There was an extensive discussion above regarding how the acknowledged editor, Utz Utermann, is credited in the German edition of the book where he is the "Bearbeiter" and the translation of that word is "Editor", which is also generally accepted here. "Wilhelm Roggersdorf" is a nom-de-plume of Utz Utermann, and was a general writer, and not specifically a "screenwriter." He is known to have edited the work, but no source states he provided any substantive content to the book, and the sources only say that he edited to make the book fit for publication. Several questions exist:

1. Where a person has a non-de-plume, should each name be used one time?
2. Is it generally accepted that editors actually edit books and make them ready for publication, or is this an unusual enough event to get major notice for this particular book?

My opinion, which I had thought was the accepted consensus until several editors said no consensus had been reached, was that the wording in the lede was sufficient and accurate, and that only one name and one description of the editing should be used, even though I regard the fact that an editor "rewrites" a book to be of minimal importance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

At the time he worked on C0tG, Utermann was primarily a screenwriter and producer. His journalistic work was more than a decade ago, and his (non-screen) writing career was only just picking up. I would prefer to use the name "Wilhelm Roggersdorf" primarily, with a short note that it's a pseudonym of Utermann. I've also never seen anybody agree with you that "Bearbeiter" should be translated as "editor" - indeed, I have several times tried to make it clear that that is a problematic translation, because "Bearbeiter" is not a well-defined role, and the common translation of "editor" is "Herausgeber". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(moved to comments section)

• Several reliable sources state "completely rewrote" (total umschrieb), "reworked every single sentence", "rewritten", and so on - see above. That Utermann was a screenwriter (and, unlike his possible sci-fi work, that that was a major part of his career) is also well-attested. I fail to understand your insistence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And since the consensus was to call the editor the "editor" why should he then be given a different name and the title of "screenwriter" instead of "editor" in the body of the article? And we had pretty much all accepted "editor" in the lede - is there a reason why you feel a specific other term ought to be used after we had settled on it? Collect (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No matter how often you repeat it, we have not "settled" on anything. As I've suggested above, I think that in the lede we should refrain from characterizing Utermann as editor or writer, but stick with a short "with Wilhelm Roggersdorf". We can expand this in the body, where we can discuss his role in more detail. Now, is there any reason why you won't accept the reliable sources that state "totally rewritten", "reworked", and so on? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • In other words we can basically ignore all the thousands of words we already have on the article talk page and make the request for comment from outside editors totally useless by having the current editors iterate all that has been said and resaid before. The article, AFAICT, is about the book and not about Utermann - I think you conflate the two topics. Cheers - I do not think that is how an RfC is supposed to be run. Collect (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd add that we have at least one source (Ronald Story) who describes Roggersdorf as "editor of the German edition" and "von Däniken's editor" - with three reliable sources describing the work as having been heavily rewritten, "heavily rewritten by its editor" seems a reasonable enough combination of these references. I don't see that User:Lung salad's acceptance of the term "rewritten by editor" should be taken to mean that he (let alone a consensus of other editors) agrees that "rewritten" should take no adverbs. --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Bearbeiter" cites

1. [14] translated with regard to books as "editor"
2. [15] "usual translations of clerk, editor, case worker or whatever "
3. [16] "editor"
4. [17] book terms defining Bearbeiter as "editor"
5. [18] showing equivalence of Bearbeiter and "editor"
6. [19] a Bearbeiter is a "redactor or editor" uzw.

Other sources use "reviser". Collect (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Utermann - scriptwriter

Peter Krassa wrote in Disciple of the Gods that Utermann was a scriptwriter and a film producer, citing The Trapp Family and The Black Sheep which starred Heinz Rühmann. Although I can't see that information here [20] Lung salad (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Found it, here [21] IMDB info on Utermann here [22] Lung salad (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We have another source (Ronald Story) who explicitly describes Utermann as the book's editor. Both statements can obviously be true, but his role in the publication of Chariots is more relevant to this article than his previous work as a screenwriter. --McGeddon (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I had said that myself <g> Collect (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You were, I think, just telling us how you knew for a fact that "Beirbeiter" meant "editor", and provided some general translation examples. I don't think we'd picked up on the fact that Story has specifically called Utermann the "editor" of Chariots in an English text. --McGeddon (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I was relying on German language sources for the meaning. There are more of them than you would imagine. Collect (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors do the rewriting. There are no "rewriters". There is rewriting. There is editing. There is rewriting and editing. And if you like, there is neither of those things if the author gets it right. Lung salad (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Um -- I have never heard of a writer who did not have an editor work on preparing a work for publlication. Never. Collect (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors do the rewriting. When the editors work on rewriting it is something extra to mere editing. Lung salad (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing and rewriting are two different things done by an editor. Lung salad (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not true, alas. I think that is a major problem for you to grasp. Rewriting and editing are part and parcel of the same process in getting material ready for publication. Else one could claim that editors are merely proofreaders of manuscripts - in which case there would be no reason at all to credit them in any book <g>. See [23] for the etymology deriving from 1640s, "publisher," from L. editus, from edere (see edition). By 1712 in sense of "person who prepares written matter for publication;" specific sense in newspapers is from 1803 and for "edition" in that same publication: one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time and differing from another by alterations, additions, etc.. That is - rewritten. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, each situation is different. You could have a mixture of editing and rewriting, major rewriting, slight editing, major editing, only editing, only rewriting. Take your pick. The only thing you cannot have is gereralising. All sources say Chariots was rewritten and now it's included in Wikipedia. Lung salad (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of Robin Hood's Barn does not change the definitions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)