Talk:Erich von Däniken/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Content

While this is supposed to be an encyclopedical article, there is little basic information about the person in question (von Daeiniken), giving more attention to his claims on extraterrestrial presence, criticism, etc.

What particular information were you seeking? If I had to guess, the article spends more time on his claims to reflect the weight of the sources. People writing about von Däniken often mention ancient astronauts but rarely detail his personal life. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What is so special about him?

If he is regarded as psudeo science why is he always featured on History Channel shows about ancient Egypt and even has a show Ancient Aliens, is this belief even that widesread? What merrits him that gets him to be on all these programs. Is he just a good business man? I mean isn't it basically just him who came up witht he ancient alien idea, doesn't seem worth mentioning on so many shows about ancient egypt yet I been hearing about it since I was little on these history channel shows. --24.94.251.190 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Response

von Daniken is hardly the first person to think of this. Millions, perhaps over a billion, people all over the world believe this idea. In India, for example, the idea that beings from the heavens came down in flying craft and guided human kind is not only accepted as true, but is a fundamental part of Indian theological history. This is not to say the views of these believers and their language, world view, and semantics are the same as westerners; that assumption is one made by arrogant, untraveled, and culturally isolated westerners.

von Daniken was not the first to think of this idea, but he was the first modern westerner to publish a book on the subject to explain what western civilization has long been blind too, but which has been obvious to millions over the globe, and in some cases for countless generations. Epictetus1969 (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass acceptance of an idea does not speak to it's validity.--69.245.43.176 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

He and people like him are often featured on networks like the History Channel because those networks cater to what viewers want to see, and do not make programming decisions based on the scientific validity of their content. It is for this reason that History, Discovery, A&E, PBS, etc. constantly air uncritical material on Bigfoot the Loch Ness Monster, alien abduction, UFOS, psychic powers, ancient astronauts, etc. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well no one ever really does pay attention to the Wiki is not a forum thing. Van Daniken is the first person to (in my personal opinion as an archaeologist) pervert the ideas of Carl Sagan for the purpose of mass-marketing ideas that he himself knows are not true and which all evidence points to the contrary of (yeah I put a preposition at the end, deal with it). He is special because he has sold tens of millions of books on these ideas and has made very convincing cases to the avg Joe without using real evidence to explain his claims. He just says of the current evidence "Oh I think it means this" out of nowhere. We are actually having a very fun time tearing him apart in our Myths and Frauds in Archaeology Course right now. ^^ TheArchaeologist 09:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Most people in fact, do pay attention to "the Wiki is not a forum thing". Those who do not have irrelevant talk page messages removed, and polite admonishments given to them on their talk pages. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well as you used both bold and italics in that, I'd like to see a source showing that the majority of people on the wiki do in fact follow that rule. Of course that requires combing through almost 3.8 million talk pages and examining every message from the past ten years. I mean diverge from it every so often btw, not ones who never obey the rule. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 18:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Negative bias detected in this biography

This biography demonstrates a poverty of important information about what von Daniken's many publications have contributed to the previously, and admittedly, myopic view of mainstream archaeology. Controversial or not, von Daniken's research has provided at the very least another way to think of some of human history's greatest mysteries, and at most provided a revolutionary insight into the origin of modern human cultures, civilizations, and technology.

I also find the focus of this article on von Daniken's troubled past, in combination with the relative lack of information about the contributions of his work, to be evidence of possible negative bias on the part of the author(s). I have read other biographies on wiki of historical individuals who have made significant contributions to science and history, but with a noticeable lack of information regarding their troubled personal and legal lives. In contrast, this bio on von Daniken appears to highlight issues in his past, as if to discredit him in the eyes of the reader. I think this bio needs to be edited to reflect a more balanced and fair report of von Daniken's past and present public life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.132.219 (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC) 167.199.165.183 (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can make up anything I want and add another way to think of human history's mysteries, and Von Daniken has not provided a revolutionary insight into the origin of modern human culture, civilizations, and technology. He is a hack psuedo-scientist that has been caught in fraudulent activity and deserves to be painted in such a light.--69.245.43.176 (talk) 04:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

First, if you intend to edit or post on talk pages regularly enough to maintain a discussion, it is expected that you sign in for an account. It is easier to address you as an individual if you do so.

As for the article, I do not see any material about his "personal" troubles. There is information on his legal troubles, which is relevant, and which is included in every biographical article where such sourced information exists, from Snoop Dogg to Lindsay Lohan to Simon Singh to James Randi.

If you feel there is valid, sourced information on his contributions that can be added to the article, and the sources pass WP:IRS, then feel free to add it. Nightscream (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks against the man aside, though I despise him and all that he stands for. The issue is that he has not provided a shred of real evidence to support his claims, thus he has not made an actual contribution to anything in the academic world that is really positive. I am surprised this is not highlighted more in fact. TheArchaeologist 09:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not highlighted more for the same reason I pointed out below: Because no one has gone and added sourced material on it. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I could find more negative stuff from reputable archaeologists, including Kenneth Feder asserting that the man might be a racist (for good reason, only two of the 51 sites talked about in Chariots of the Gods are in Europe), but I am not sure where to reputable sources in these fields talking about him positively. I don't think even Hershel Shanks would have anything nice to say about him. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 18:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This article does not read like a serious piece, but as a quick debunking of the worst kind. What TLA is paying you for this? It lacks references for many of the most vocal critics, which leads me to believe that those must be made up!! All in all, it reads like typical Wankypedia drivelware. Little kids in their moms basement, ridiculing adults! This will Change.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.105.240 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has many citations, whcih statements in particular did you feel were not cited enough? I'm sure it would not take much to find reliable citations to fix it. As for change, any change does need to be backed up with WP:RELIABLE sources and not just . Heiro 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with the unsigned. No, it probably wouldn't take much to find reliable citations to fix 90% of this article, the problem is that those citations should have been in place to begin with. The overall tone of the article reeks of IDONTLIKEIT tbh.... Ntipton03 (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the IP posted, the article has gone from 33 to 43 citations. So far all I see from you is general complaints and an attempt to remove half the article, including just over half the citations. Your deletion included deleting a statement by the subject himself justifying his writings - in other words, your edit prevented readers from seeing what von Daniken had to say. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to delete half the article, actually, until I read your reply, I no idea it had happened. +10 citations aside, can you honestly say that this is written from a NPOV? Ntipton03 (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll come at this from a different approach. What do you think NPOV means? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The WP:IDONTLIKEIT could just as easily be applied to the well-sourced position that von Däniken's work is controversial among mainstream archaeologists. Removing large chunks of the article without consensus is not the way forward.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this needs debunking?

Do the viewpoints he is credited for need debunking? In most cases it would be rather easy, especially with the hindsight of history. His assessment of the antikythera mechanism borders on the ludicrous, but then again, so does all of it. 06:20, --Taco1243

You can add things that his critics have said about him, as long as you cite specific, reliable, published sources, but you can't include your own opinion or viewpoint, or any unsourced material or original research. See the linked policies for more info on this. Nightscream (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Along with the stuff that Nightscream said which is vital to properly accomplishing the task of debunking his theories you have to remember that a lot of laypeople believe his stuff. He has sold over 60 million books iirc. So yes, it is very important to debunk as much as possible, lest the public believe more of this stuff. Do it by the book though, though your sn is tasty, it does not excuse you from proper wiki-ing! I would focus on his lack of real evidence to support any of his claims. TheArchaeologist 09:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, I can't believe that I had to make an account to state this, but it's not your job, or wikipedia's job to debunk anything by anybody. That's up to the reader to do with the available information that is provided by wikipedia! Honestly, I don't believe most/all of his theories, but because of them, I learned a lot on my own, and now enjoy reading the latest "legit" theories on things like the pyramids. Part of the awesomeness of wikipedia is the journey you take learning, WITHOUT having someone behind the scenes pulling strings directing you on the direction THEY think you should be taking; neutral point of view. Ntipton03 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. The content you removed puts his ideas in to context with respect to the mainstream. You are replying to a 2 year old section. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm new to this and I don't know all of the ins and outs of Talk page etiquette. Also, I didn't realize that I inadvertently deleted half the article, thank you for correcting my mistake. clearly I need to leave the editing to the grown ups... Ntipton03 (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not "debunk" ideas on Wikipedia. We only present ideas in accordance with notability, neutrality (in particular proper weight) and verifiability, especially as it applies to fringe ideas like von Däniken's. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Meh whatever works, though I am glad to see their is set treatment for fringe theories. As long as it doesn't convince people his crap is something to be seriously considered as theory, much less fact, (and maybe convinces some otherwise), I am happy. It is part of our job after all :p *white knight.jpg* TheArchaeologist 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpelgrift (talk • contribs)

Really people? I realize that much of what Von Daniken talks about is unproven and even possibly way off the mark, but to act as if every last thing he has asserted or come up with has been wrong is just nonsense. Take the Ganterbrink shaft in the Great Pyramid of Giza, he went through step by step of the ridiculous nature in which archeologists instantly ignore anything that does not fit their theory in a 1998 book. He stated that he believed there was more behind the "doors" in the Ganterbrink shaft, or at least it was worth examining rather then simply saying that it was a ventilation shaft. And sure enough, over a decade later, the Djedi Project has proved his assumptions correct and worth examining. Yet all anyone here does is try to shame the man and make him into some sort of nutjob. yet you try to say that you use citing and scientific proofs.....get over your hatred and admit that not everything he does is utter crazyness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.151.155 (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Asserting that we don't know everything about an archaeological site is perfectly normal and sane and par the course for archaeologists, asserting that whatever we don't know yet must've been done by little green men from outer space without any proof whatsoever is craziness. Heiro 04:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Which shows that you don't know well enough what his usual claims are. He rarely says "the LGM did this and that" but "the LGM were here and the humans - either directly influenced by the LGM or because the LGM went away - did this and that" and the "proof" (he rather likes to speak of "hints") for that he "finds" in the myths and folktales of the people. He is also very critical of scientists that claim that they know the undeniable truth, which a real scientist never should do. New facts can always falsify your previous claims which is exactly what happened with the Gantenbrink shaft. Daniken has an advantage here as he is no scientist and never claimed to be one and that's why he can go nuts with his theories as much as he likes. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any debunking but as usual this has to be done the wikipedia way. --Bhaak (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Pseudonym?

According to the libary in my hometown von Daniken is a pseudonym. Is that true?

Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.121.147 (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ufologist?

Can he really be called a "Ufologist"(see categories)? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. That's one of the cases where the supercat, Pseudoscientists, is the appropriate one. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Doug on that one. Heiro 05:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. Removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that pseudoscientist is the most appropriate category here. But we need a very good source characterising him as such. I couldn't immediately find one in the article. Hans Adler 07:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ancient Astronauts and Space Gods! written by Profs. Ronald Wyllys and Rory Coker of the University of Texas at Austin (in last paragraph)
• Is Parapsychology a Pseudoscience? written by Christopher C. French, Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, Goldsmiths, University of London, paper presented at Conference on Science and Pseudoscience, Birmingham Un iversity, 15 March 2008
• How to fake science, history and religion:An investigation into the invented histories of Atlantis, pre-Ice Age civilizations and cosmic catastrophes. Written by Vincent Crapanzano, from The Times Literary Supplement August 5, 2009

Here is a few. And I specifically avoided debunker sites.Heiro 07:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Plus, this one already in the article Orser, Charles E. Race and practice in archaeological interpretation 2003. University of Pennsylvania Press 978-0-8122-3750-4 page 73 calls him a pseudo-archaeologist. Heiro 08:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Three good sources should be enough. The first looks good but isn't usable for this purpose per WP:BLPSPS, but fortunately it doesn't matter. Hans Adler 08:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag on Criticisms section

I don't think this is warranted at all. Be their very nature, "criticism" sections can't be too neutral. I think this should be removed - everything is pretty well cited, and von Daniken's theories are not held to be valid in the scientific community. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Charged by Interpol?

Interpol did not arrest him, they provided information that lead to his arrest. 64.139.231.51 (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Selection of views in Criticism section

According to WP:SOURCES, one should

"[base] articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (...)"

Despite protests and two attempts to remove the material by me, there have, over the course of the last days, repeatedly been re-inserted citations from books heavily criticizing Däniken as committed to European ethnocentrism and to "ultimate racism" (Feder, Kenneth L. Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology; Flenley, John; Bahn, Paul G. The Enigmas of Easter Island). It has now turned out that these views really are those of the authors of the quoted works, and not just mentioned in these works. Thus, the inclusion of the material in the Criticism section of the article is, in my eyes, antagonistic to the following principle from WP:3PARTY:

"A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. This is contrasted with a secondary source, which is one where the material presented is based on original material, [...] and with a primary source, where the source is the wellspring of the original material, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals."

Works included in the section in which Däniken is criticized, as defined above, present Däniken's views in a direct confrontation, i.e. are the subject of the section—criticism of Däniken—, themselves, in an especially clear way. Despite partially being published with Oxford University Press, both works, moreover, present views that can, on the basis of common sense, clearly be considered heavily unconventional so that it even appears more plausible to subsume them under wellspring of the original material, i.e. under primary sources.

To justify the inclusion of the citations in the Criticism section, there would have to be at least one source mentioning the works that the citations are from, i.e. a tertiary source.

As long as such a tertiary source is not provided, the Criticism section would deteriorate into a message board for critics, conflicting with WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are taking a fairly extreme view of the meaning of third party. It is meant to mean unaffiliated, not necessarily uncritical. And the way to avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE is to observe WP:WEIGHT with coverage that "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If the prominence-weighted consensus of viewpoints on von Däniken is largely, or entirely, negative, then this is what the article needs to reflect. As far as I can tell, nobody's turned up any non-critical coverage of von Däniken to date. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):This is being discussed at WP:BLPN. I will note that policy on this at en.wiki is very different from that at de.wiki. What you are suggesting would prevent anyone who had any knowledge from commenting. But do reply at BLPN, which is the appropriate venue. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Channel 4

A brief summary of this programme (the material cited to which was recently removed) can be found at Chasing Von Daniken's chariots; Loving The Alien: The Real Erich Von Daniken Ch4, 9.00pm:

WHO sold 60 million books about strange beings that came down from the sky and lived among humans?

Not JK Rowling but Erich Von Daniken, author of world-wide best-seller Chariots of the Gods, among many others.

Find out how a former convict and Swiss hotel manager tried to challenge the academic establishment in this amazing programme.

Director Ralph Lee explains the intricacies of Von Daniken's theories: "The basis is that in our ancient past, aliens visited us and procreated with our ancestors to create homo-sapiens.

"They caused great leaps in our evolution, and in the evolution of our myths and religions."

It may sound bizarre, but these theories connected with a great many people. Also, they aren't just the result of an over-active imagination.

Erich Von Daniken backs up his views with strong Biblical evidence.

Ralph says: "Erich points to the first few chapters of Ezekiel in the Bible. Ezekiel spoke of flying beings that came from a cloud in the North.

"We have interpreted these in an allegorical fashion but Erich sees them in a literal way.

"He believes that Ezekiel simply didn't have the vocabulary to describe what he saw. When the aliens left they promised to return."

And do people really buy into these theories? He says: "Many people did and still do. People like the Nasa scientist Blumrich, who tried to translate Ezekiel into technical terms, became a convert to Erich's ideas."

The author has had an extraordinary life to say the least.

The documentary looks at Erich's life as a barman, convicted thief and then hotel manager, as well as his ideas. Thousands of people were prepared to put aside everything they had ever been taught in favour of Erich's ideas, and this phenomenon is focused on in the programme.

We get a sense of how crazy these theories must have seemed at the time, and are also shown the flaws in Erich's story. The early '70s was also a time when people were both searching for answers and being hit by images of the space race.

"People were beginning not to accept the norm," Ralph says.

"It was more fundamental than the hippie margin getting a new theory though. Erich's books were cheap to buy, and they weren't dusty old tomes. They spoke to a lot of people."

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Book list

The book list was nearly the same length as the article, and undue. I've limited to the one notable book, if there are more notable books or works please add them. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Von Daniken's books have been printed in - purportedly - 60 millions of exemplars, and there are publications with publishers like Oxford University Press who deal with them. It appears mad to state that only one of the author's books should be notable.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I can't see a problem with reverting the book list as long as it is correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

But what we shouldn't do is have a separate listing for the same book in different languages, these need to be combined. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- I also don't see why there's a particular emphasis on "German language books published between 1984 and 2009". I would further point out that not one book is currently listed as being published by OUP. I would suggest that some indication of noteworthiness is needed before books are re-added. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstandings: There was never dealt, here, of books by Daniken that would have been published with Oxford University Press, but only with such published there or with similar renowned publishing companies containing remarks on works by Daniken.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If the books sold 60 million then these should be easy to source to establish notability, we should not have a mixture of his more obscure books with his big sellers. It is the same with any author; I doubt many good or featured articles on authors have a big list of non-notable books at the end. I am not saying his other books may not be notable, but that should verifiable be demonstrated through the use of reliable sources or through the linking to an article on the book. (It seems inappropriate to add the content whilst we are still in discussion) IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not so inappropriate to add this content without detailed references, as it does not contain potentially libelous statements.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is "inappropriate" as being WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- particularly given the strange obsession with "German language books [this is not a German-language Wiki] published between 1984 and 2009". 02:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I see fundamental logical problems, and also a problem with WP:NICE in this wording. Daniken is a German-language author.Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything contentious or likely to be challenged needs a source. Yes, Daniken is a German language article, and if this were de.wiki we'd list the German titles first (and, on the same line, the translated English title perhaps, not as a separate list). I'll also note that on BLP issues there are some basic differences between the way de.wiki and en.wiki work, in part because of some fundamental legal differences. Besides the 'opinions' thing, we have a lot of articles on minor politicians that wouldn't be allowed on de.wiki (I was at a meeting this weekend which included someone from de.wiki and blp issues were among the items discussed at the meeting). Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, von Däniken appears to be a bilingual author (I see no translators listed for the English editions), and I think it strange that we've got 15 German books listed for a period where we've only got 5 English books. This from an author whose very first book was also released in an English edition. Did he give up writing English editions for a period? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not basing my reasoning on a worry about libel but on due weight, style and also the indiscriminate nature of the lengthy list. We should not be mixing, in a list, things which are not notable with those which are. If notability can be demonstrated for a book then that helps establish due weight in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections then I say we set notability, as given by existence of a related article or significant mention in independent reliable sources as the criteria for the book list. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

A word of caution

It seems that Däniken got up the noses of creationists, as well as the scientific community. So we need to be careful that the sources we cite for any criticism aren't likewise WP:FRINGE. I came within a hair of citing such a source for more details on his legal problems (luckily I recognised the publisher as an in-house creationist one, when I was looking up the full citation). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First 33 years

I find it odd that the article says nothing about the first 33 years of von Däniken's life -- his family, education, or anything what he did before he more-or-less-simultaneously was sent to prison for fraud and wrote an extremely-controversial-but-best-selling book. I've seen it mentioned that he worked as a hotel manager, but little in the way of details. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The hotel manager part is cited here and should be in the article. The lack of detail about his early life is caused by the lack of suitable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you quite sure that a TV programme review is much of a source? I rather think it was not remotely "fact checked" at any point, and seems rather jocular in nature, rather than trying to be strict factual reportage. YMMV.

(example)It wasn't until the Swiss authorities began a witchhunt against him - for bringing the good name of watch-making, chocolate-churning, profiting-from-Nazi-persecution-of-the-Jews Switzerland into imagined disrepute - that von Daniken got bothered.

Does not appear, on its face, to be something anyone reasonably would try to use as a source in a BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian is normally OK, but there are other sources saying that he was a hotel manager at some point in his early life. Anyway, saying that he was a hotel manager is less controversial than saying that he raped half a dozen kiddies, so it should be in the article if a suitable source can be found.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

TV programme reviews are not generally considered part of the news attribute for the Guardian, and the wording therein makes pretty clear that this particular one is non-utile. And the rule is that claims which are not sourced at all to a WP:RS are deletable on sight - so much for the aside that he may have raped children (which I fear might well be construed as a BLP violation on this page, to say the least). Find a genuine reliable source for the claim - first. Collect (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

For anyone lacking a sense of humour, I am not suggesting that he did do anything with kiddies. Like Hrafn, I had read that he was a hotel manager at some point, so there should be a search to find a suitable citation for this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The onus is absolutely on the person seeking to add the claim to use a proper WP:RS source for the claim. Find one. Collect (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is Shermer, Michael (2002). The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. p. 17. ISBN 1576076539. sufficiently reliable a source for his being a hotel manager? Incidentally, even if reliable, I'm not sure immediate inclusion is a good idea, as 'he was born in 1935, he was a hotel manager (for an unknown period), he went to prison and wrote a book in 1968' feels very 'here there be dragons' (small amounts of information surrounded by large areas of empty space).Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The point that I was trying to make is that saying that someone was once a hotel manager is not very controversial. Some of von Däniken's critics have made this point, as a way of implying that he lacks a traditional academic background. However, if it can be reliably sourced, there is no great problem with saying this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent NPOV edits by Collect

I'm a bit embarassed as I probably should have spotted this. I did notice, perhaps in this article, a change to 'supposed' which I thought wasn't the best word although probably better than what was there before, and meant to look. The changes are largely an improvement. I'm not sure about " has allegedly given fraudulent evidence to advance his hypotheses" since he admits to it and that's in the same paragraph. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I am imperfect, and assuredly miss some stuff, but I hope my general aim is good. Collect (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

22 September 2007 Skeptic magazine

It seems that the 22 September 2007 issue of Skeptic magazine contained a number of short articles by Daniel Loxton on the subject of von Däniken, including:

• Poisoning the well?
• A history of deception
• A rich Swiss fondue[1]
• Why not simply go back?
• Who is this guy?(Erich von Daeniken)
• Chariots of the Gods?
• Busted!
• A Chain of Lies
• The priest's gold

If anybody can get access to this issue (either electronically or hard copy), it might help fill in some holes in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) — Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Iron pillar

Did von Däniken really describe the Delhi pillar as "rusty and man-made" in the Playboy interview? Story's The Space Gods Revealed said that von Däniken was at least right about the lack of rust, as the metal is simply very pure, and "a good European iron founder of about one hundred years ago could have produced the same result". He quotes the Playboy interview (there's an extract at http://www.skeptictank.org/files/urban/ironplr.htm), but it seems more about von Däniken admitting that science had found a better explanation of the lack of rust, not that he lied about the rustiness. --McGeddon (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Playboy interview asserted that the pillar had rust on it, so fair enough. Thanks to Collect for digging out the source. --McGeddon (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Information sourced to Playboy interview - which I am unable to verify

The "early life" section appears to have a great deal of negative information sourced to a single Playboy interview - which seems unavailable. This should be completely removed until solid evidence that all of it is properly soured to Playboy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the section appears to be a massive copyvio AFAICT. And not from Playboy, but from Skeptic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You have jumped to the wrong conclusions - the info comes from Playboy and not from Skeptic who probably got its info from the Playboy issue. And if this cannot be used then every citation on Wikipedia is a copyright violation. Lung salad (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And since the exact same words are used in Skeptic as were given here the proof of copyright violation is not disputable. This is not a matter of "citation" it is a matter of illegal copyright infringement. Collect (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have the interview from Playboy before me. I will alter the words AGAIN if you want. Lung salad (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I found it at [2] and the amount of plagiarism is enormous. Cheers - Wikipedia does not abide plagiarism. Collect (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No other sources about Von Daniken's early life exist anywhere else. Not in English anyway. And this same material was used on the television documentary. [3] Lung salad (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough WP:PLAGIARISM does not say "this rule does not apply if you do not have any sources otherwise." It is an absolute position that plagiarism is not tolerated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the only problem here is the trivial one of using some sentences from the interview verbatim, rather than repeating them in our own words. I'll take a stab at it now. --McGeddon (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

How is an issue of Playboy "unavailable"? "Solid evidence that all of it is properly soured to Playboy"? The only applicable policy here is WP:V, which requires a citation indicating to readers where the information comes from. The passage is so supported, with the date/issue of the publication in question. Just because you don't have the issue does not mean that it's unverifiable. If it were, then as Lung salad mentioned, every non-online citation is to be removed, which is silly.

Further "evidence" is not required beyond that. As for plagiarism, content needs to be paraphrased, not lazily cut-and-pasted word-for-word. If a long passage, outside of a reasonable direct quote is not so paraphrased, then it should be reworded or removed. Nightscream (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with this source is that it is an interview and thus a primary source. I am not particularly happy about it being used as the main source of biographical information on von Däniken. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's all that exists in the English language about von Däniken's early life. It seems to be reliable since it is placed alongside von Däniken's interview, and von Däniken is quite open and candid about this part of his past life. The television documentary is the only other source available, and again von Däniken participated in this documentary, with full knowledge about its contents about him. It would be strange if this material about him was omitted from Wikipedia, under the circumstances. Lung salad (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

IOW you seem to think a single article introducing an interview in Playboy meets WP:BLP requirements - and to do so you used large chunks from that article. I find that quite insufficient, and is not, IMO, "cured" by someone simply rewording claims made in an insufficient source in the first place, and that the plagiarism, IMO, is not cured by simply rewording the plagiarized material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly why they fail to meet these policies, rather than just telling us that this is your opinion? Rewriting and clearly sourcing copy-and-pasted content seems enough to meet the requirements of WP:PLAG, from my reading of it. --McGeddon (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:COPYVIO

Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.

There is a proposed law ("SOPA") which would allow Wikipedia to be shut down completely if such a copyvio were found. Cheers. Wikipedia does not like copyright violations and plagiarism, has banned some users for it, and it is abundantly clear that the "structure" of that section is lifted directly from Playboy. Collect (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The snippets of the Loxton pieces that are not behind the paywall hint that they may contain some information about his early life -- so I'm not sure that "all that exists in the English language" is the full picture. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The alternative is a blank space because of pedantry. Lung salad (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia policy is "pedantry"? Nope. WP:RS and WP:BLP exist for good and substantial reasons. Read also WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:COPYVIO which specifies why violations of copyright are a major issue right now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Poking around Google Books turns up an article in Esquire from 1973 which hints at greater details, although the full text isn't available there. There's also a 1974 NYT article behind their paywall which mentions his convictions for fraud. --McGeddon (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Then use it. The NYT, properly attributed, is RS for claims - a copyvio of Playboy is not a valid use of Playboy, and has ramifications per WP:COPYVIO. That is what Wikipedia policies call for. Cheers.Collect (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That a specific link is a copyvio does not mean the original source is unusable. Playboy is a reliable source - it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (in it's articles). Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't use either source personally because I don't have access to them (I tried pulling fragments from the Esquire article using Google, but didn't get much). I'd also add that von Däniken's criminal record (and possibly other aspects of his early life) can apparently be sourced to a Channel Four documentary from 2001, but User:Collect rejected it as a source because it is "not online". Is there a reason to doubt the accuracy of this source, or its representation in the article? A source not being available online is not a reason to disregard it. --McGeddon (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When a source is totally unavailable (Channel 4 appears to have removed it from its site, and there are zero online transcripts for the programme) it would require an enormous leap of faith to find such a source to be sufficient for any contentious edit. It is not just a matter of "not online" but seemingly deliberately removed from being online. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting "seemingly deliberately removed" from? It's a 2001 documentary - Channel Four didn't start putting its programmes online until 2006. They had a little web page up for the programme in 2001 (archived here) - it redirects to a generic "history" search now, but so does the page for another documentary in the same series, "The Real Captain Bligh". Presumably every "microsite" from their 2001 site met the same fate in a site-wide redesign.

It's a moot point since the article wasn't alleging anything unsupported by other published sources, but is there a policy on using sources which exist but are very difficult to track down? WP:OFFLINE suggests "consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source", which seems as relevant for an out-of-print book as for a ten-year-old television documentary. --McGeddon (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Channel 4 keeps a lot of stuff - if an item were removed for cause, that would not show up in someone's old tape. And, in any case, WP:RS seems to think transcripts are superior to videos. I would not be so nit-picking were it not for one article where a person insisted something was in a video - which wasn't. And another where an editor just made up an entire quotation from a book. Hence, for a BLP, I tend to think that we ought to be careful and not simply assume that the claims must be true. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please assume that other contributors are not lying. WP:AGF is policy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Then why does WP:BLP say that poorly sourced contentious claims should be deleted? Nothing to do with AGF, it has to do with specific Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between assuming other contributors are not lying and assuming poorly sourced things are true. You have constantly conflated "Verifiable" with "Verified by Collect", and now you are conflating "Assuming Good Faith" with "Assuming Facts." Unless you have a reason to doubt Admin, OTRS, Arbcom Clerk Dougweller's honesty, you should stop assuming he is lying. Hipocrite (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If the fact that it's a primary source is troublesome, then this can be alleviated somewhat by stressing the attributive nature of the source in the passage. For example, that paragraph can start off with "According to von Daniken....", and maybe "he says..." be placed once or twice thereafter in that paragraph. Also, does the information come directly from him in the interview, or from the Introduction, which tends to precede Playboy interviews, and is derived from the publication rather than his own words? I ask, because the information is not very self-aggrandizing, promotional or flattering; In addition to mentioning his early schooling, interests, and apprenticeship under a hotelier, it details his being caught for theft, and his conviction and imprisonment for embezzlement, fraud and forgery. The fact that this is not flattering to him is less likely to raise questions about the information's reliability. It probably came from Playboy himself rather than him, and if it came from him, then why would it be in question? He'd have a motive to lie about positive events in his life or evidence for his theories, but hardly have one for negative things like conviction and imprisonment for felonies he committed.

Btw, there was no citation for his conviction for fraud involving the jewelry deal in Egypt. I removed that. Feel free to re-add it if you can add a citation to it. Nightscream (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The information is mostly presented as fact in the introduction (it's online here), although they mention his rejection of the church and his father as being "By his own account".

Looks like a footnote fell off when I was rearranging the paragraph breaks - the jewelry deal is mentioned in the Playboy article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The information is in the pre-interview. There's a copy at [4] that while probably copyvio, is almost certainly authentic. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The Real Erich von Däniken television documentary shows film footage of his trial and Swiss newspaper coverage. It happened. Lung salad (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's from the pre-interview Introduction, then it's not a primary source after all, but a secondary one. Nightscream (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought: the current interest in the article began at WP:BLPN after a complaint about the "ultimate in racism" quote. There are now two quotes from psychiatrists in the "Early life" section cited to Playboy implying that he is a pathological liar. NPOV issues, perhaps, or is this OK?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

At one of his criminal trials, a court-appointed psychiatrist testified that von Daniken was "a master swindler," a liar, and a criminal psychopath. Looking at his past, it's easy to see a pattern of deceptive behavior ...

— Fragment of A history of deception (Skeptic 22 September 2007) that is not behind the paywall

It would appear to not just be Playboy making this claim -- it seems that it was part of the expert testimony in the court record. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We should be careful about using quotation marks in the article - neither source puts them around "liar and a criminal psychopath" when summarising the psychiatrist's verdict, so it's possible he didn't use these exact words. --McGeddon (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This was made in the context of evidence a financial fraud case. It does not necessarily disprove the theory that the Pyramids were built by aliens, which would be true if reliable evidence supported it and even if von Däniken was a convicted fraudster. The admissibility of "bad character" evidence in court is a matter of debate, and can be used to mislead under some circumstances. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It "does not necessarily disprove the theory", but it does however cast a rather large cloud over any evidence sourced to von Däniken himself that purports to support this theory, which leaves .... ????? as evidence. It is therefore highly relevant in judging the theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sort of. A mass murderer is allowed to propose the theory that the pyramids were built by aliens, but the real problem is that all mainstream archaeolgists have rejected this theory. I am still rather worried about the weight being given to the views of psychiatrists in unrelated cases, as they seem undue weight and criticism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, one psychiatrist's opinion does seem a bit undue, and somewhat redundant next to multiple convictions for fraud and embezzlement (which would be hard to pull off without lying). If there's some secondary-source analysis of the trial and how it connects to von Däniken's wider work then it'd be interesting to see it, but I think we can let the bigger facts speak for themselves, given the current sources. --McGeddon (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I would trust von Däniken over a mass murderer with a knife -- I would however trust a mass murderer over von Däniken not to forge evidence in support of a theory. Both the specific crimes he was convicted for, and the psychiatrist's testimony, is directly relevant to von Däniken's credibility as a source of evidence. This material originates from a neutral expert (the court-appointed psychiatrist) and has been reported in multiple sources. I therefore think that it meets WP:WEIGHT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Having skimmed Story and gotten some more detail, I think it's possibly useful to use some of the psychiatrist's remarks as a balance to von Däniken's stated defence (that he didn't mean any harm and it was the bank's fault for not making better background checks). The full blast of "a prestige-seeker, a liar, and a unstable and criminal psychopath with a hysterical character" seems excessive, though. --McGeddon (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I bought the NYT article ($4.74). Anyone interested on a copy please send an email or drop me a line in my talk page, thanks.

I had to follow closely the description of the psychologist's words and of the sentence. It was difficult to change anything without changing the meaning. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A quick note that the $130,000 that von Däniken was accused of embezzling at circa 1970 prices would be worth around $750,000 (£500,000) today.[5] This was a substantial sum at the time, but it appears that his books - trashy though the critics claim - helped him to pay off his debts related to the court case.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, from the warnings at Template:Inflation it looks like we have to be careful about making that calculation ourselves. It seems like it might be okay given that we're just talking about an enormous loan, but economics isn't my background. Anyone? --McGeddon (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up. Out of interest, is "criminal psychopath" attributed as a direct quote?

And it turns out the text of Story's The Space Gods Revealed is easily findable online - I've used it to expand some of the details about the hotel and the court case. --McGeddon (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting adding the figure to the article, as it is an estimate. While working at the Hotel Rosenhügel, von Däniken clearly stole a large sum of money in a breach of trust, which resulted in a three and a half year prison sentence. This should be mentioned in the article, but I am still worried that the "Early life" section gives undue weight to his criminal record and the opinions of psychiatrists. Nobody seems to have accused Graham Hancock of being a thief or pathological liar, but it does not alter the fact that academics do not accept his theories.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Condon report

We are rather stuck with what is written in the report, and not use OR or SYNTH to make it more "interesting" as to what it says. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There might be a confusion here. I didn't make up those conclusions after reading myself the Condon report. Those conclusions are made by the NYT article, which is citing data from the Condon report. When I made the first edit [6] I hadn't even read the relevant parts of the Condon report, I had only linked its main page. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Then those "conslusions" must be referenced precisely to the NYT article. And, to the extent that any of it is opinion, the opinions must be cited as opinion per WP:BLP. And placing two separate claims from separate sources into a single sentence is WP:OR by the way. Simple really. Collect (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Separate-source claims in the same sentence is fine, the important thing is that the citation footnotes are placed immediately after the individual claims, rather than being grouped ambiguously at the end of the sentence. Is this what you meant? I'm not sure what you mean by "conslusion". --McGeddon (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Separate-source claims in the same sentence is fine", as long as you don't attempt to infer a link between the claims. Then it becomes WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The case at hand did, in fact, attempt to make such a link. Consider"

He also says that the "Tulli Papyrus", also cited by von Däniken in one of his books,[15] is likely cribbed from the Book of Ezekiel, and quoted Dr. Nolli (through Dr. Walter Ramberg, Scientific Attache at the U. S. embassy in Rome), then current Director of the Egyptian Section of the Vatican Museum, as "suspect[ing] that Tulli was taken in and that the papyrus is a fake."[16]

Which makes a connection Rosenberg did not make, and which the NYT did not make. And making a clear implication that vD knew that the book was a hoax at the time he referred to it. Just as one blatant example of OR. Collect (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ouch, is that what the text is telling to the reader?

The correct implication is that vD parroted the "apocryphal lore" that he found in UFO publications, without making any fact-checking. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The proper course then is to find a source stating that particular claim directly - what we have is that Rosenberg, at best, can be interpreted as saying that after vD used a source, it was found to be a hoax or the like. Rosenberg did not say "vD knowingly used a debunked source" as far as I can tell (and I waded only through his oddly organized chapter). Rosenberg does not make any comment further than that. The NYT could be used, as a separate claim, that vD "parroted" lore, but not that the material had been debunked by Rosenberg, or that specific lore was what was involved. The joining of the two makes an improper claim from each proper claim. Just separate the two, and make sure that we stick to what each source independently states. Simple enough to comply with? Without access to the NYT, I do not know if the "without fact-checking" is a fair reading of that book review (I do not always find book reviews to be fact-checked <g>). Collect (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What connection is made, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ghostwritten

Lung Salad edited the article to say that Chariots had been "ghostwritten by a science fiction author". Does the documentary seriously allege that? Ronald Story's book says that Chariots was "extensively rewritten" by Wilhelm Roggersdorf, a "screen writer and film producer", at the behest of its publishers, but this is not the same as ghostwriting. --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The claim that Chariots of the Gods? was ghost written is not directly sourced from the citation given at [7]. This is an important BLP claim, and should have watertight sourcing, otherwise it should be removed. It is tagged as "citation needed", because if the documentary is the only source that mentions this, it is less than satisfactory to include it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like it might be a misinterpretation of the source - if it's been common knowledge for ten years that von Daniken didn't even write his own book, I think we'd be finding more sources that mentioned it. I've removed the claim as a BLP violation, as such an enormous allegation shouldn't be sitting there unsourced. --McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I get it, Cosmos is a reliable source and The Real Erich von Daniken isn't. This is somwewhat arbitrary. Lung salad (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the quality of any sources, I'm just checking that the documentary explicitly makes this exact allegation, and that it's not your misinterpretation of Roggersdorf "extensively rewriting" von Daniken's original manuscript. Any chance you could give us a relevant quotation from the documentary? --McGeddon (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wilhelm Roggersdorf wrote the preface to the first edition of Chariots of the Gods? It is possible that he had a substantial hand in editing and proofreading it, but it would be potentially libellous to imply that von Däniken did not write the book.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 5) The problem is, if readers see "ghostwritten", they will assume that the book was written from scratch by the ghostwriter, and that von Däniken simply sat and watched the money flow in. Is that what the documentary says? Or does it say that von Däniken wrote the whole book with all the facts, but the prose was so bad that a professional writer had to reword and reorder everything? They are not the same thing at all. The way you wrote it, it implied that the book was entirely written by the ghost writer. P.D.: Yes, please, check the video again. P.D.D.: Playboy says that the book was rejected by a dozen publishers, so the actual book must have existed. If I understand the chronology correctly, the 13th publisher accepted von Däniken's book, then passed it through a professional writer before going to print? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nobody's uploaded this documentary anywhere, to provide a link for you folks. Must watch it again. Lung salad (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you don't have a copy of the documentary and can't 100% confirm that it says the book was "ghostwritten" rather than merely being heavily rewritten, then we should wait until someone can actually watch it for us. --McGeddon (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've got the documentary. I will give details as soon as possible. Lung salad (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a transcript from the relevant part of the documentary The Real Erich von Daniken:

Von Daniken: "Finally when I had the Manuscript nobody wanted it. I photocopied 20 times. Each publishing house sent it back with usual "blah-blah-blah we can't use it"."

Narrator: "One publishing house, Econ, dismissed von Daniken's Manuscript as the emotional ramblings of a non-writer. 23 rejections later, the desperate author threw himself on the mercy of an influential German journalist."

Thomas von Randow (science editor, Die Zeit): "He has a Manuscript, he wanted me to read it and he wanted to publish it. It was the stuff many people I know would love to read, be it as science fiction or else judging it as a real possibility. So I called a friend of mine, and said "look there is a gentleman here I must tell you, he is a bit 'verrückt', crazy, but he will write you a bestseller."

Narrator: "And so, with this dubious recommendation, von Daniken finally got a contract. Ironically with Econ, the same publisher that had previously been so scathing. After extensive rewriting, by a former science fiction writer, the book "Erinnerungen an die Zukunft" known in English as "Chariots of the Gods?" was unleashed on the world."

That's it.Lung salad (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the standard way that the autobiographies of celebrities and sports stars are written. Since they are not professional writers, they are given a substantial helping hand, but are usually credited as the author on the front cover of the book.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for digging that up. So that sounds the same as Story's version of events - the publisher had the book "extensively rewritten" by Wilhelm Roggersdorf before publication. Although heavy rewriting is a form of ghostwriting, it's misleading to just call the book "ghostwritten", and we should be as specific as the original sources are, when a vague summary could be misread as derogatory.

The Chariots of the Gods? article might be a better place for this level of detail about the book's publication, though. --McGeddon (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, most books are "rewritten" in the editing process ... calling it "ghostwritten" is extraordinarily POV wording. "Gone With the Wind" was extremely heavily editted - care to assert it was "ghostwritten"? Collect (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar ! Lung salad (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wilhelm Roggersdorf (article on German WP) was not a "science fiction writer", but a former screen writer. He rewrote Dänikens books for some 20 years. Däniken dedicated his book Die Augen der Sphinx (1989) to him, calling him "literarischer Ziehvater" (literary foster-father). --Jonas kork (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Reaktion Books source

Not sure if this publisher is reliable, but the book Invented Knowledge[8] seems to have very good reviews. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Author's a reputable historian, book is distributed by the University of Chicago Press, good reviews, no problem. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Stiebing (ISBN)

The ISBN given for Stiebing's book in the edition note is: ISBN 0-87965-285-8. However, on the back cover it says ISBN 0-87975-285-8. As Stiebing does not add any information to Däniken's Playboy statement, I have deleted the reference in the Gold of the Gods paragraph. --Jonas kork (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)