Jump to content

Talk:Erich von Däniken

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.181.205.184 (talk) at 19:41, 18 December 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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:

If anybody can get access to this issue (either electronically or hard copy), it might help fill in some holes in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

am I the only one to whom seeing "two serpents joining"under Pakal seat is much, MUCH harder to imagine than rocket with flames?

CNN article

There is some interesting material here that could be used in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]