Talk:Erich von Däniken

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Shouldn't there be just a teeny weeny bit of doubt expressed here? I can't do it because I think he's a complete fraud and utterly unworthy of an article except as a fraud. Also book titles should be italicized, but I don't care about his books. Former hotel clerk, convicted of embezzling, I believe. Ortolan88

Hmmn interesting - it seems you Ortolan88 have the right to present your opinion as absolute fact but von Daniken's opinions (generally presented as theory but sometimes as fact) are to be eliminated due to a personal accusation. There is an old philosophical argument about attacking the person rather than the theory or opinion. Gee, and I thought this was the 21st century and enlightened people believed in freedom of speech!

Contents 1 Forgeries 2 Deletions 3 Däniken didn't originate these ideas 4 Anti-Semitism 5 Source? 6 "Nobility" 7 von Däniken is not noble 8 Carl Sagan 9 A Few Changes 10 Guilt 11 swiss tax evader 12 Drake 13 Daeniken propagates alien cults 14 Criminal

[edit] Forgeries

I added somewhat to the paragraph on von Däniken's forgeries. I did this with a little reluctance, because it is dangerously close to argumentum ad hominem. In this case, however, he is the sole source for the authenticity of substantial parts of his information, so the question of his personal integrity is relevant to a discussion of his books, in the sense of credibility of evidence rather than validity of arguments. I am however still somewhat concerned because it places the emphasis on credibility when in fact most criticisms of his work are based on their logical flaws.

In any case it is also relevant to his biographical information, since a number of sources claim that his criminal record consists of one minor offence as a youth. As you see from the included information, that is false. (Thanks due to (British) Channel 4 researchers for digging up the facts!) Securiger 15:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this a candidate for the conspiracies page too? Gzuckier 18:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how theft from the boy scouts is "forgery"? It's not really relevant to his later activities.

It isn't forgery, but it's a crime of dishonesty for personal financial gain, as were all of his subsequent criminal convictions (some of which did include forgery). A person might consider that relevant in attempting to judge his reliability as a sole source on the provenance of certain artifacts. In any case, his criminal record is certainly significant biographical information. Securiger 19:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in a point to Securiger. Däniken ist not a serious autor of science. He write often rather nonsens. User:Mario todte, 13:40, 4 May 2005 (CEST)

And, of course, Mario Todte, that is nothing more than your opinion

[edit] Deletions

Someone using addresses like 203.49.148.193 and 203.51.157.133 has been deleting large chunks of any negative commentary about EvD, and replacing them with the claim regarding the 3 year prison sentence that "he claims this was the result of a pro-Catholic conspiracy against his theories." First, the facts you keep deleting are established and important biographical details; you can't just go effacing them because you don't like them.

Second, adding EvD's argument in defence would be perfectly OK, if you can reasonably show that he does in fact make such a claim. However, I don't believe he does make such a claim; in the interviews I've read, he admits that he was guilty, and just downplays the seriousness. If you can find a reference that shows he does in fact make such a claim, we'll include it. (Although it is also extremely improbable, since he was charged with those offences before the official release of his first book, when only a few hundred copies were in circulation and he was still practically unknown. Also, his first fraud conviction was long before he started writing at all.) -- Securiger 11:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I left the "anti-Catholic conspiracy" bit in place, although I have no information one way or the other about it. With respect to the request for a source on the pottery fraud, skepdic.com says it's a Nova program called "The Case of the Ancient Astronauts" that aired 8 March 1978. --Michael Snow 04:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That 'someone' is me - the URL's are my work and home computers and now that I have worked out how to log in as me you can see it to my face.

I make the same point - the rules of this site are clear - controversial information such as these claims of fraud should have their sources cited. If you cannot do that (or will not) the information should not stand. If you cite a (legitimate) source I will leave it alone but equally you should leave the alternate view in place. As to my source it is von Daniken himself in personal conversation (I have travelled with the man, stayed at his home and had him as my guest and known him for 27 years). Of course you will claim this biases me and it does - towards having at least a balanced view put on this page. I will re-post and ask me to respect both views as I will/have yours

As regards his major convinction and imprisonment, it is not just EvD that claims the whole thing was blown out of all proportion in order to discredit him. There was a biographical documentary made recently (screened in the UK - I will try to get more details) in which some establishment figures in Switzerland and elsewhere concluded that the trial and subsequent imprisonment was a major miscarriage of justice. The programme also admonished the scientific and literary communities, who it was claimed were aware that this was happening, for making no defense of EvD on, at the very least, grounds of intellectual freedom. Davkal 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Däniken didn't originate these ideas

I'm sorry, but this article has to be reformulated in certain key areas. Daniken did not originate any of those major points, which he only popularized, and added his own personal tweaks to. Even the idea of extra-terrestrials genetically manipulating human evolution in the past predates Von Daniken and is found notably in Brinsley Le Poer Trench's The Sky People, London: Neville Spearman Ltd., 1960 (non-fiction). Like I said, none of the major points were originated by Von Daniken, and let's not discredit these ideas by tracing them back to this Daniken person, who merely popularized these ideas. Alexander 007 12:56, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The framework of this article was set-up by someone who 1) did not realize the context of paleo-contact theories before & outside of von Däniken; 2) is obviously very much against paleo-contact theories, even though there is nothing pseudo-scientific about paleo-contact itself. Scientists much more qualified and more credible than the Wikipedia contributors who wrote this article have seriously considered paleo-contact. Alexander 007 16:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Semitism

I know this will be challenged, so before anyone adds it to the article, I submit evidence that Erich von Däniken was/is anti-Semitic, to a degree at least. Erich von Däniken wrote, in Chariots of the Gods, chap. 3, pg. 40 (translated into English from the original German by Michael Heron):

"Some 2,000 years before our era the Sumerians began to record the glorious past of their people. Today we still do not know where this people came from. But we do know that the Sumerians brought with them a superior advanced culture which they forced upon the still semibarbarian Semites."

---Most likely, he's made other statements like this. It's not as anti-Semitic as one would want to be able to call him anti-Semitic, but he's not fooling anybody. Alexander 007 03:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now you're just being plain ridiculous - the Semitic tribes at the time (not Jews mind you as that religiion had not formed at the time of the Sumerians) were like almost all other pre-Sumerian peoples exactly that - barbarian, that is not civilised. As the Sumerians were the first civilisations it is a FACT that all previous peoples were NOT civilised.

Also either your quote is just plain wrong or the translation is as the Sumerian civilisation was long before 2000 years before our era.

What exactly is the point of these unfounded attacks on von Daniken. You are entitled not to agree with him but constant slander and innuendo is not good enough. More importantly, if you are going to accuse a popular author (whether you like it or not) of incorrect facts it would help if you got yours right User:Rockywood

The quote is exactly quoted, from the English translation, as indicated. I have three different copies of Chariots of the Gods (I like the book for entertainment purposes---it is a classic), a hardcover edition from 1969 and two paperbacks from the early 1970's. They all give the quote exactly, with the "2,ooo" years figure. Alexander 007 18:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the quote proves nothing, sorry. Niz 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taken in the context of other such comments he has made, it is as good as if he said it explicitly. Alexander 007 05:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I make exactly the same point again. If you want to criticise the man's theories that is your right but you have no right to accuse him of being anti-Semitic. I know him to have Jewish friends and colleagues (and persons of Semitic background, not just Jewish) and your slur is insulting and unnecessary. User:Rockywood

Okay, forget about it. But I will leave it on this talk page for others to investigate. Alexander 007 18:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this context, I would assume "our era" means the christian era, and therefore "2000 years before our era" means 2000BC. It may not display much archaelogical subtlety to describe the semitic tribes of that era as "semi-barbarian" but (speaking as a Jew) I can't see anything anti-semitic in it. Erich vD has enough faults without inventing imaginary ones. csrster, 19 Oct 2005

[edit] Source?

"...von Däniken "concedes that Europeans could build the complex cathedrals, but refuses to admit equivalent levels of skill and endeavour in the non-European societies." No source is cited and it is not clear who is being quoted.

[edit] "Nobility"

[edit] von Däniken is not noble

Erich von Däniken is not noble. Names with "von" in the Alemannic region are usually simply indications of the ancestral home of the name-bearer. I.e., from Däniken. (anonymous)

My mother had told me years ago that our family name was originally "von Reinckens" and the "von" was a title of nobility. I majored in German in college. "von" is the German word for "of" or "from". The Dutch equivalent is "van". They have nothing to do with nobility. RickReinckens 23:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Sagan

This sentence is ambiguous. Credited scientists such as Carl Sagan and I. S. Shklovskii have written about possible extraterrestrial visitations to earth in the distant past and even visitations within human memory.. I do not know what Shklovskii thinks but Sagan was highly skeptical (as a good scientist should be) of extraordinary claims with little or no supporting evidence. So when he wrote about "possible extraterrestrial visitations" his conclusions were entirely negative and the sentence needs to reflect that. I would change it myself but I know nothing of the other person.

Sagan was open to the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence but through scientific study. For example he supported the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) because it is a methodical search for the skies. He certainly did not support in any way, shape or form the notions brought forward by UFO abductees or the likes of EvD, Velikovsky et al. In fact he wrote the book "The Demon Haunted World" to debunk such pseudo-scientific notions. To him UFOs were comparable to sightings such as demons, fairies, angels etc. which he attributed to delusional / uncritical thinking influenced by prevalent notions. --MagicMoose 13:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made the appropriate changes that I feel make it clear that Sagan was vociferously opposed to notions put forth by Daniken & others. --MagicMoose 20:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Few Changes

I have changed: "Building on the earlier works of many others, von Däniken reiterated the hypothesis (already discussed by previous authors) that if intelligent extraterrestrial life exists and has entered the local Solar System in the past..." To,

"Building on previous works by other authors, von Däniken claimed that if intelligent extraterrestrial life exists and has entered the local Solar System in the past..." I think the new version gets rid of the repetition (3 times) of building on, reiterated and already discussed. I think the point is still clear but now reads a little better.

I have also changed the line: In his book The Demon-Haunted World Sagan savagely debunked UFOs and other popular fallacies.

To

In his book The Demon-Haunted World Sagan savagely critiqued UFOs and what he believed to be other popular fallacies.

I have made this change because to "debunk" something means that it is full of "bunk" to begin with and this is far from shown in the case of UFOs. And, similalarly, I have added what he [Sagan] belives to be other popular fallacies since we can't just assume that Sagan is right here. I do not think I have in any way lessened the notion that Sagan attacked these things but I think it reads a bit more neutrally regarding whther he is right or not. Davkal 18:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilt

Whiel the German Wik seems to me to be POV (pro EvD), it DOES include the following that is relevant: On the 13th of February 1970, von Daeniken was convicted ... of alleged imbezzlement/defalcation. After serving 2/3 of his sentence, he was released from prison early. In 1982, the Graubuenden canton court over-ruled/put aside the judgement, snce no guilt could be proven. Kdammers 07:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] swiss tax evader

I have removed the Swiss tax evader category because EvD is the only person on it. There seems to me to be no point in a link from an article about EvD to a category that doesn't exist except for his name!

[edit] Drake

Shouldn't Drake be brought back in?Kdammers 08:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daeniken propagates alien cults

Daeniken propagates alien hivemind cult by telling that aliens are gods who created us. These alien gods are obviously esoteric. Thus Daeniken is classified in article as esoteric. Daeniken's books are sold by occult and esoteric bookstores, but not by religious nor scientific bookstores.

The anonymous user 83.5.23.35, who wrote the preceeding passage, has been incredibly busy today. (S)he has added 'occult' or 'esoteric' or some term I suppose means the same to the E. v. D. articles in

• Česky
• Deutsch
• English
• Español
• Français
• Nederlands
• Polski
• Português
• Slovenčina
• Suomi
• Svenska
• Tiếng Việt
• Türkçe

in most cases with reference to the 'fact' that E. v. D. were called occultist in the English version. (I were not able to understand the history box in the Hebrew version, whence I do not know if (s)he missed it.) This in itself is a feature, almost worth a 'barnstar for creative vandalism' :-(

However, it is better to argue the thing through here, and then change on other places, if changes are neccessary.

83.5.23.35, do you understand the word 'pseudoscientist'? It means a person who claims to do scientific research, although there is nothing scientific about it. 'Pseudo' means that this is not real, that (s)he pretends to be a scientist, but isn't. E. v. D. is classified as a pseudoscientist in this article, because he claims that all he writes is scientific (not religious), but his claims are not true.

Look at the bottom of the page! E. v. D. is placed in the categories Pseudoarchaeology, Pseudohistory, Pseudoscience, and Mythographers. The article does not support E. v. D.'s claims. It does not call his ideas a 'religion'. It calls him a pseudoscientist, and in many ways that is much worse than being an occultist or mysticist. Occultism and mysticism are on the borderline to religion; and some mystics are clearly classified as religious.

Two examples of occultists are H. P. Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner. Both claimed that every human has a number of invisible, spiritual bodies, that some of these die when the physical body dies, but that other parts reincarnate, so that the inner selfs live many lives, one after another. This is not very different from some of the buddhist or hinduist teaching. Don't make Erich von Däneken the 'honour' of calling his ridiculous theories occultist!

It is true that Däniken's books often are spread by 'occult aond esoteric bookstores' as you phrase it; I'd rather call it 'bookstores speciaising on New age'. In my impression, this is often true for books by pseudoscientists.

Finally, you are referring to the articles of Zecharia Sitchin. I see that you put in occult into these articles a couple of days ago. I've never heard about this Sitchin, before, so I really cannot say. I do note that he is classified as a pseudoscientist, much as E. v. D.. Could you give me some reason for also classifying him as an occultist? Does he believe in reincarnation, or telepathy, or spirits of dead people talking through media in trance? Or did you just call him occultist the same way you did E. v. D., without any good reason, because you did not understand that classifying him as a pseudoscientist in itself was quite enough to state that what he writes is nonsense? --JoergenB 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect to whether Sitchin or von Daniken are occultists they are interchangeable - that is, in both cases they are not. The are both writers about interventionism/ancient astronaut theory.Davkal 16:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I classify Daeniken and Sitchin as occult/esoteric, because they propagates non-Christian beliefs in aliens as gods. What's about classifying Daeniken as New-Ager, instead of esoteric or occult? For example, Sitchin talks about sumerian deities, which are obviously occult. Babylon was full of magic and esoterism. I use wizardry-related words as worse than pseudoscience-related words. For example, Marduk was chief magician-god in Babylon. Alien interventionism is similar to demonic interventionism similar to interventions of Genestealers in WH40K, that establishes Genestealer cult in enslaved planets, transforming men into half-Genestealers. Look here: [1] Hivemind alien swarming brood from Nibiru and Des too transformed apes in hybrids of them and apes. Thus I can equal reptilian foulbrood beasts from Des and Nibiru with Genestealers. They all has evil demonic properties.

They may very well do but neither Sitchin nor von Daniken postulate aliens as actual gods/demons/angels etc. They merely suggest that a lot of god related literature & myth is actually about extraterrestrials whose technology was so advanced to primitive man that they were taken to be/described as gods. There is nothing really supernatural here at all - merely advanced technology. One could classify von Daniken as a New-Ager since that is a far broader term encompassing a lot more than occult or esoteric, although even that is still pushing it a bit. I don't see the real pressing need to classify here either - the article is pretty clear about what he is suggesting. Davkal 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I renamed all occult classifications for New Age classifications. This would be better. I think that this classification helps each Christian in avoiding Daeniken and Sitchin books as New Age things, which are clearly condemned by Christian Churches.

I'm not sure that's the purpose of Wikipedia.Davkal 17:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who reads in Wikipedia about Daeniken and Sitchin should have chance for avoiding their writings as contradictory to his Christian beliefs. I done this classification for easing this. Let's no one read about these pseudoscientists without even slightest warning. Now seems that international Wikipedians accepts that Daeniken is one of New Age inspirators, but isn't a New Ager itself.

[edit] Criminal

von Däniken was at least indirectly pointed out as a Swiss criminal, as he was in the "Swiss tax evaders" category. There's no claim in the article to support this, also, he is Swiss, so how can he move to Switzerland to avoid taxes? He was also the only one in the category, so I removed it. /81.170.235.234 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)