Talk:Billy Meier

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


Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022[edit]

Occupation teacher author - . Other Claims Made are slander and invalidated. 2604:2D80:6A00:B00:24F4:3C6C:6B31:9596 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The requested content is unsourced, and Other Claims Made are slander and invalidated is not persuasive. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone upset about this article on my talk page[edit]

Anyone want to give me advice for this? I think maybe I could have reacted better in my last response but I'm not really sure what else I could really say. Apart from a recent edit I made to the remove cult leader as the occupation parameter, I'm not really familiar with this person/article/ufology as a concept. So... any advice? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's a cult leader. That's what sources say because it's fundamentally true. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SchmuckyTheCat I don't really agree with the majority of what the person on my talk page is saying. But I do think that "cult leader" just doesn't make sense in the occupation parameter in an infobox. The rest of the article doesn't even really mention anything like that other than he's a founder of a religion, but that's not quite the same thing as cult leader. You also mention sources. Is there more than one that chacterizes him this way? My personal gut instinct is that something like this should have more context in the article and be attributed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Various SPAs with connections to Meiers org have been trying to get the cult description deleted for some time. I had listed some sources to support his cult leadership here, and likely more could be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an additional "cult" description from Joe Nickell [1], from a review of a book by Kal Korff which also describes Meier as a cult leader in more detail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A review should be treated the same as any opinion piece. It may be used for attributed opinions but not for statements of fact in wiki voice. And who's Kal Korff? What evidence is there he's a subject matter expert? Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NB I should have said they however I had a quick look and sources including publishers that seem to be linked to use Korff use 'he' [2] [3] so I won't change my comment above. Anyway I should add that Prometheus Books doesn't sound like the sort of publisher where we can assume all their works are RS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot more in this article about a decade ago. Someone came along and deleted huge chunks of the article as "cruft", but it left no doubt that FIGU was a cult and had a lot more citations. In any case, read what I replied to below in reply to Jojo - his day in and day out activitie involve leadership - management, administration, fundraising - for a widely recognized cult. That's his occupation SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clovermoss: How about if cult leader was instead attached to a "Known for" parameter in the infobox? Based on LuckyLouie's earlier post there are several reliable sources supporting that. And since we are discussing the subject's occupation(s), the term ufologist would be a valid descriptor. Meier is, after all, deservedly included on the List of ufologists page, and other ufologists (Stanton Friedman, Jacques Vallée, et alia) have ufologist included as an occupation. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because as a daily job he's a cult leader. He has a big farm where all the cultists live. He communicates with other cultists globally. He manages who gets paid from the cult's funds. He delivers messages to cultists about what's what. He's the leader, of a cult, and that takes up the majority of his time. While these guys are dead (hint, hint about the future) Wikipedia doesn't hold back from calling David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite cult leaders. The same as Billy here, there day to day job was leading a cult. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to add some sourced text to the article regarding Meier's cult. I agree with Schmucky's common sense, but we'd need sources to support that rationale. I like JoJo's proposal, since "ufologist" is the occupation that is most widely-supported. BTW, this is also being discussed at the BLP noticeboard but maybe it's better to keep discussion centralized here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will add "ufologist" to the occupation parameter of the infobox, per my comment above. I am not certain why two discussions were seen to be required for this page-specific issue, but this Talk page seems sufficient and appropriate for further attempts to reach consensus. In that spirit, I will attempt to search for additional RS that explicitly refer to Meier as a cult leader. If I can't find anything, so be it. Not being the best interwebs searcher, however, I invite others to join in the task. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoJo Anthrax and SchmuckyTheCat: (and everyone else), take pains to ensure that in trying to locate sources that might use "cult leader", "ufologist", or whatever, we are not cherry-picking and unduly trumpeting those. If 1000 reliable sources use labels other than cult leader, we should not lend undue emphasis to the few that do, even if we think that's what he should be most known for. Targeted searches for any phrase invite bias, as they may overlook other phrases. It's best to search for the person, as unbiasedly as possible, and see which occupations and labels naturally seem to be most commonly used to introduce/describe the subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I meant to bring up but never got around to. Thank you for stating it so concisely, Animalparty. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The combination of the pedantic post above and the threat of blocks at WP:BLPN, both directed at experienced editors in good standing, make it easy for me to immediately abandon this discussion. Good luck folks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors mistakenly cherry picking sources when trying to find something to support something in an article is a very common problem, Any experienced editor should have seen it happen even from experienced editors. There is absolutely nothing wrong or "pedantic" about an editor reminding people not to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any experienced editor should have seen it happen even from experienced editors
Indeed, the sacred cow is the bias that never ends. The blind spot is as old as sight itself. We could all do with a dose of humility and seeing this isn't malfeasance, it's basic human psychology. We will all inevitably do this. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how an article Marshall Applewhite which only uses the term 'cult leader' in a category and with a single use in a source title is not holding back? Even the term cult is only used once in the text referring to someone who studies cults. Then there is a see also referrring to Jim Jones. There are a bunch of sources etc where cult appear somewhere which generally the title which we repeat in our information on those sources. Applewhite is long dead but for a BLP, it's unlikely the category is acceptable given that there's no discussion of the issue in the article text. David Koresh at least seems to be an actual example of what you're referring to since it uses the term in wikivoice in the lead and in the info box lists his occupation as the leader of the Branch Davidian cult although the sourcing is possibly better. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a Ufologist. He doesn't study UFOs. He channels aliens directly, rides around in outer space in their ships, and time travels with the aliens, and then reports back to his cult with future prophecies and religious instruction. Ufologists study people like him. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't seem Ufologist belongs, how common are sources that call him a Ufologist? Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me the best description for this guy's occupation is "Religious leader". Gets almost exactly the same info across, but is much less pejorative and a lot more wiki-style. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any issues with using religious leader. More neutral and not undue weight on a perjorative term. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the clear consensus at BLPN, I have removed cult leader as occupation from the info box. I'd note that we cannot use OR to say he's a cult leader in any case so random editor's opinions that his work implies he's a cult leader are irrelevant as they always are. I'd also note we do not punish people so we don't keep BLP violations just because a subject or their followers have been disruptive on an article in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What just happened here?[edit]

Just so we're clear

  • SPA accounts complain or vandalize this page on the daily if it isn't semi-pp
  • SPA complains to someone with no knowledge of the subject, complaint: occupation=cult leader
  • Unknowledged person doesn't seek out more knowledge on the subject, but moves the conversation to a noticeboard instead of the talk page.
  • Noticeboard piles on to SPOV based on gut reaction to the words instead of references (and abundance of numerous off-wiki sources)
  • Clearly sourced and referenced material (occupation = cult leader) is removed as non-SPOV.
  • What was clearly sourced and referenced is then referred to as original research,
  • New editors begin engaging in original research, without references, to find a SPOV occupation title.

Good job! Clearly that's in-line with NPOV, OR, CITE. BLP is not a requirement for SPOV, so throw that in the mix too.

So, here's a suggestion after looking through a few other biographies of other UFO cult leaders: remove the occupation from the infobox. Don't use OR to come up with a term y'all can agree with. Use the "known for" infobox field to say "Founder of FIGU (German abbreviation of 'Free Community of Interests for the Border and Spiritual Sciences and Ufological Studies')". Then we can reëxamine the term "cult leader" after more/better sourcing is added. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Use the "known for" infobox field to say "Founder of FIGU (German abbreviation of 'Free Community of Interests for the Border and Spiritual Sciences and Ufological Studies')". Then we can reëxamine the term "cult leader" after more/better sourcing is added"
I think this is a good idea. The only reason I think "Religious leader" is an appropriate term is not WP:OR but that it's a fair summary of the person's vocation. It's not OR to say someone is a religious leader when they're labeled by our sources as a cult leader. Cults are religions, that much is undisputed. And we absolutely should call the organization a cult in the body, I see our sources support that quite comprehensively. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meier's devotees scream to hell and back they aren't a religion. I'd rather avoid it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content in lead not mentioned elsewhere[edit]

The lead currently includes the statement: "Meier's prophecies repeatedly blame Jews (whom he refers to as "gypsies") for future atrocities", sourced to a chapter in a book in German. It appears SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) added the sentence in 2020, copying from the German Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat, can you (or anyone else) verify that the source accurately supports the assertion?. And assuming it does, does the assertion belong in the lead per WP:PROPORTION? (antisemitism is not mentioned anywhere else, which is one of the reasons I removed Category:Antisemitism in Switzerland). This is a potential BLP issue, and no content should be in the lead that is not elsewhere in the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a BLP issue, Meier is quoting aliens, not himself (sarcasm off)...
It's in German because he speaks and writes in German. Many of the best sources about him are in German. It's a reliable source in the German Wikipedia, and it quotes his own primary sources to make the point. If, in English, you want to go to primary sources, the issue is quite glaring. He (or, errrr, the aliens he channels) also dislikes male homosexuals, but that's not in the secondar source so it's not in the article.
If you want to move it somewhere else in the article, feel free. The current length of the article does not really have content separation between the lede and the body. Whenever it has had length to it, someone will come along and remove chunks en masse as "cruft". Then we're left to digging out the important parts from the cruft to replace them in the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting the existence of the book, nor it's reliability, nor that the German Wikipedia uses it. I'm asking if you personally read the source and concurred that the sentence you added accurately, fairly and proportionally conveys what Meier's prophecies say. I know almost nothing about Meier, but it reads like something tacked on merely to pile on criticism in a prominent place. If his prophecies repeatedly blame Jews, and it's a significant aspect of his career, there should be ample documentation of this. Per MOS:LEAD, if most users only read the lead, and the lead is overstuffed with factoids, then Wikipedia is misleading them. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a religion[edit]

Wrong description 73.244.27.246 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable independent sources that contradict the ones presently cited.- LuckyLouie (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the FIGU Manifesto? This is the organisation's own views about religion as is pertains to their work. There is also FIGU in a nutshell which, if you read just the titles to the bullet points you may understand. https://ca.figu.org/our-manifesto.html https://ca.figu.org/figu-in-a-nutshell.htm
Instead of independent sources which are observations from the outside in, what about actually looking at what they publish themselves about this very topic which you are partially correct and partially incorrect about? I do not see what it could hurt. Actually, these two documents are technically a rebuttal of your evidence and proof of slander.
However, I am not a lawyer. And those documents are crystal clear. Lightbringer1375077 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can not seem to find a nonprofit or not-for-profit nor a for-profit organisation that pays its taxes, does not solicit and is run by volunteers. According to the law of America, they would literally need a new classification to be considered as a non profit organisation. Lightbringer1375077 (talk) 03:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a religion, September 2023[edit]

(copied from User Talk) On Wikipedia, we go by third party independent published sources. The higher quality the better. You could say we like academics and university presses the best. In this case, we have footnoted sources that unambiguously characterize Billy Meiers FIGU organization as a UFO religion, such as: "UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture" by Gregory L. Reece..."Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements" by George D. Chryssides..."The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions" by James R. Lewis, and even a couple more not used in the article, like Robert Pearson Flaherty. WP:BLP does not mean that critical commentary cited to high quality sources cannot be included in articles. I hope you'll self-revert your removal of the term and start a discussion on the Talk page. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I teach anthropology of religion at an American university, so I'm no stranger to peer reviewed sources. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are not usually peer reviewed, but rather tertiary sources, which are discouraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on using encyclopedias and dictionaries as sources is very detailed, so each one must be evaluated independently: Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. If we discount these, then you have only one source claiming it is a religion, which doesn't seem to me to be "unambigous." The definition of "religion" is notoriously tricky and controversial, and calling it such comes down to how one defines religion. Since I am aware there is no consensus on this point, I am really not comfortable with the blanket claim that the already controversial figure of Billy Meier is a religious cult leader. This seems to add more drama unnecessarily. Perhaps there is a happy medium where we could say that some people have argued that it is a UFO Religion, or even that one author did so. If you don't like the solution I suggest, then perhaps it would be productive to begin a discussion on the article talk page. Best, Coryannyyz (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, *several* expert sources have given a critical analysis and have termed it a UFO religion, so saying one author 'argued' it would be disingenuous. We also avoid WP:GEVAL ("some people say this, some people say that"). WP:NPOV is not about aiming for a middle ground between fringe vs. mainstream views. I don't see any mainstream academic sources are arguing that it is NOT a UFO religion, so there isn't any academic 'controversy'. Editorial WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia operates, and policy-based arguments are the format, so the article Talk page is the best place to continue this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for publishing this discussion on the article talk page. Although I don't agree with your reading of Wikipedia policy or the literature (Reece doesn't actually say that Meier is a religion - see p.154), I don't care enough about this topic to argue over the definition of religion. I'm surprised that my alternative more neutral term of "organization," which can hardly be disputed, would raise such dander! I have reverted my edit. Enjoy! Coryannyyz (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, discussion and consensus is a good thing. There's been lots of informed discussion on this page in the past, maybe this will encourage more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coryanyyz said

"The definition of "religion" is notoriously tricky and controversial, and calling it such comes down to how one defines religion.

" I agree with that. While there's never been a great objective definition what actually is a religion, these things are in the usual definition in whole or in part of what constitutes a religion:

  • Unfalsifiable beliefs that must be taken on faith [4] - ✓
  • A creation myth that defies known history and science [5] - ✓
  • Ritual practices [6] - ✓
  • Prayer! [7] - ✓
  • A life cycle of a pre-existence, afterlife, reincarnation, etc [8] - ✓
  • Spiritual teachings (extensive) [9] - ✓
  • Holy writings (“Genesis” [10] “Commandments” [11] ) - ✓
  • An undeniable leader with
    • Supernatural powers (prophecy, telepathy, time travel) - ✓
    • weird titles “One True Contactee and Prophet of the New Age” - ✓
    • Messianic claims (he's coming back 800 years after he dies, check line 36) [12] - ✓
    • Claims to be reincarnation of JMannuel (who is claimed to be Jesus Christ by humans, but Meier claims there is no Jesus Christ, just Jmannuel, confused yet?) [13] - ✓
    • The only person with access to unique relics [14] - ✓
  • Organization structure for preservation of scripture [15] - ✓
  • After your wallet! (OK, so they're not as bad as Pat Robertson) [16] [17] - ✓

The supernatural parts are indisputably religious. This is from my research and it would be WP:OR to make my own claim that FIGU is a religion or cult. But, given that other references do make the claim, I don't have to. These references are useful to yourself or any other passers-by who might wonder what backs up the referenced claims. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable aspect of so called organised religion in America is that upon creating a "new religion", you establish yourself as a nonprofit or not-for-profit organisation that may declare exempt tax status. However, I haven't seen any nonprofits that do not solicit, do not ask to be exempt from taxation and that are completely run by volunteers. Not even one. And you can check right here for yourself. https://www.guidestar.org/search Lightbringer1375077 (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billy_Meier&oldid=1199199240"