Talk:Erich von Däniken

in defense of daniken
everybody has right to write and publish a book. and tagging sb with pseudoscience tag is despising him and spitting at him. because pseudoscience means shit. you can instead say it is just outside academic science. Krochmal (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * His work being characterized as pseudoscience has nothing to do with denying anybody the right to write and publish a book. --Ismail (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

pseudoscience means a liar trying to cheat you. stating multiple crimes in the same short paragraph sounds like stating that his writing is another crime. there are others here who feel this article sounds like a 'hit piece'. think about it. thinking outside the mainstream has always been essential for progress in human knowledge. Krochmal (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree that thinking outside the mainstream is good, Making stuff up as you go along per Daniken, isn't cutting the mustard. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "pseudoscience means a liar trying to cheat you" No. Most pseudoscientists are just incompetent. Why don't you inform yourself about a subject before you talk about it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

am I the only one to whom seeing "two serpents joining"under Pakal seat is much, MUCH harder to imagine than rocket with flames? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.205.184 (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your imagination is that of a 21st-century person who is familiar with rockets but who probably knows next to nothing about old American imagery. So, what your imagination tells you does not matter.
 * More generally, what does not matter is what random people on the internet think. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. And this is not a forum. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions about improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also worth looking at this source. The Tomb of Pakal is one of von Däniken's most famous claims, but the claim that it must be a rocket is highly dubious and subjective.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 12:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

CNN article
There is some interesting material here that could be used in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Link to the wrong Clifford Wilson.
I've taken out the link to Clifford Wilson, as it goes to someone completely unrelated to this subject.--Dmol (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?
I wonder how can it be pseudoscience if he states clearly many times that he is not scientist and not pretending to be. His books sound more like travel diary about visiting places, meeting people, talking to them and then thinking about that. Seems like you and me have right to speak what we think. Being called pseudo-something is near equal to accusation of fraud which is a serious insult. If some sources say so, there should be another source given for balance. Krochmal (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are in the wrong place. You should ask Brian M. Fagan, Kenneth Feder, and the other reliable sources who call it pseudoscience. Wikipedia just repeats what the reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, I forgot. Wikipedia does not do WP:FALSEBALANCE. Read WP:FRINGE and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Däniken was convicted for "repeated and sustained" embezzlement, fraud, and forgery.. and on 13 February 1970 he was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment and was also fined 3,000 francs"
 * Is that fraud enough? All his Books are based on ideas of older writers  - for example  ,like Robert Charroux .But on top of that, he made some nasty racist statements about black/african peoples in some of his books. 46.114.168.217 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

oh am i really in the wrong place? how about you? i just checked definition of Pseudoscience which is directly linked here. check it out. it is just what i said. Krochmal (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not matter. We have reliable sources calling it pseudoscience, and that settles it. See WP:RS. Your deductions are original research. See WP:OR. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Däniken and racism
I have added a section discussing the use of racism in von Däniken's theories. The influence of racism in ancient astronaut theory is well-attested to not just by critics but is entirely evident in the works of Däniken himself and others alike.

I encourage those familiar with his work to document the use of racism in Däniken's work. It is not just a critique of his work but a foundational aspect of his theories, which is why I believe it deserves its own section. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, you would need secondary sources pointing out the racism there. We do not scan primary sources for things we find interesting or exciting. We let secondary sources do that and quote those. See WP:PRIMARY.
 * I encourage those familiar with his work to document the use of racism in Däniken's work. Please don't, for the same reason. We could find lots of wrong and outrageous claims in the writings of crackpots, but this is not the place to document those. Your addition should be reverted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted it and also deleted the unnecessary fluff section "Response to criticism". It's not a response to criticism, just another extraordinary claim.
 * BTW, the section "European ethnocentrism" already contains a racism accusation by Flenley and Bahn. Maybe they say more about it. Your quotes about Africans are pretty outrageous, and it would be good to have that in the article - with good secondary sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This is something that von Däniken says in Chapter 2 of his 1979 book Signs of the Gods. It is wacky and controversial stuff and some people might see it as racist. However, it does need discussion by secondary sources as it should not be based on a primary analysis of the text.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think "some people" might see it as racist; it is quite literally scientific racism. His racism is not a detraction flung at him. He directly acknowledges the existence of distinct biological races and implies one is inferior and closer to apes. It is a central theme of the work I originally cited not by a critical analysis but as an objective fact based on his acknowledgment of biological races alone.
 * I respect your decision to remove the section as is due to the rules regarding primary sources; however, it would be a responsible decision for the article to denote his belief in scientific racism. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)