Talk:Billy Meier

reversion of prophet "zarifou" (sp) in lede

[1] this diff. That source doesn't claim Billy is a reincarnation of Zarifou (sp) he's been adding it to his name (or something, it is unclear in the source). It also doesn't source the previous six prophets that Billy claims. The "TheyFly" blog is curated by his official English-speaking spokesperson. Self-published sources are reliable sources for self-made claims. The wording of the text puts the claim in his mouth, sourced from sites under his control. The book, makes a new claim, and doesn't cite anything else.

The book does look like a decent source to use for future article expansion. This article needs to explain how he is a religious cult leader of FIGU, not just a contactee with faked evidence. The book looks good for that, I'll try to acquire it. I'm not sure if it's publication actually makes it an RS, that has to be established. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd want to cite a primary source - so you can clarify exactly what the claims are. This isn't always good though, since WP:FRINGE sources like "theyfly.com" are often packed full of argumentation and proponent viewpoints (which other editors may now feel they are free to include and cite). When it comes to fringe claims, I always prefer WP:FRIND independent sources; they provide arms-length analysis. I'm not that familiar with Kal Korff, but Prometheus Books has a pretty good scientific pedigree. Regarding Korff making a new claim, it could have been accurate at time of publication. Fringe blogs like "theyfly.com" often change information in response to critics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Introduction to article

The first sentence of the article states that "Eduard Albert Meier (born February 3, 1937), commonly nicknamed "Billy" is the founder of a UFO religion." That Billy Meier founded a UFO religion is entirely incorrect. The "Freie Interessengemeinschaft für Grenz- und Geisteswissenschaften und Ufologiestudien" (FIGU) is simply an organization of like-minded people. with the interest of studying the Meier material of their own free will. The organization is not based on the belief in any god or deity nor is the worship of a being of any kind promoted. The information disseminated by FIGU is freely given with no strings attached. It is up to the individual to either accept the information provided by FIGU as true and correct or not.

An overview of FIGU can be accessed in a free booklet, "FIGU in a Nutshell," at https://creationaltruth.org/Library/FIGU-Booklets/Small-Booklets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinpigford (talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is cited to high quality secondary sources, which we give weight to and rely on when building articles.- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this what Wikipedia is supposed to be???

I must say that this page is a complete sham. First of all, where is the element of religion in FIGU? I have taken a good look at every definition of religion and found none. The acceptance of the existence of extraterrestrials does not define a person as a religious believer, neither does the study of writings from one particular source. There simply is not an element that permits the definition of FIGU as a religion! Next, there is this sentence “Meier has been widely characterized as a fraud by skeptics and ufologists”. As a reference to this, are given nothing more than cursory references to Meier. Glossary-type references, just to fill up the space and make this look like a real referenced article! Where is any real reference to how this conclusion was reached and by whom??? Where are the references to all the evidence supporting or weakening the case? They were here once, this was once an actual informative page before it was extensively stripped off content. It turns out that Wikipedia does not fulfill the role of presenting facts, unless we are talking of a real UFO religion like Raelism, for which extensive details are permitted. See the contradiction? FIGU, which does not define itself as a religion, is labeled as one, and the page of its founder is stripped off content because it’s “fringe”, while a self-declared UFO religion like Raelism is given ample space. It turns out that Wikipedia is not suitable for the neutral presentation of controversial facts! Raelism is given space because no attempts were ever made to legitimize the claims of its founder. If very extensive evidence is presented as it was and is the case with Meier, that’s too much for Wikipedia apparently. This page also completely fails to mention Meier’s role as an author. The German page is more balanced in this regard and mentions his extensive bibliography, but the fact that most of the books haven’t been translated to English yet is no excuse to completely omit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGuerra (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Asket" and "Nera" photos

I don't know why there has been recent edit warring [2] regarding photos of purported extraterrestrial women "Asket" and "Nera". The WP:FRIND sources cited don't support that these photos were "manipulated by forces unknown", or that there is any question that they are not images of performers from the Dean Martin Show. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The first source actually contains the following text at the bottom of the page "Although it cannot necessarily be proven that Meier faked his photos and films". What more would you need to accept the sentence "manipulated by forces unknown" is a reasonable and balanced one to have here? -Jamesgtmoore (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Manipulated by forces unknown" infers some supernatural intervention, so no, Wikipedia can't state that. Is there a remote possibility the photos are of aliens? Again, no, Wikipedia can't even hint that. Also, there's no real need to duplicate a discussion of the photos in both the "Alleged extraterrestrial contacts" section and the "Photographs and films" section. Let's pick one or the other. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How about "manipulated by persons unknown" in the "Photographs and films" section?--Jamesgtmoore (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There was no doubt that the images were from the Dean Martin Show. When this was proved, Meier changed his story and claimed that they weren't his original images and had been changed by the "Men In Black" to discredit him, despite the fact that he'd been selling a book with the fake images for 18 years. [3]Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well that explains the odd notion that they were "manipulated by forces unknown". - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wendelle Stevens' books

--Jamesgtmoore (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Hi guys can you please restore the Wendelle Steven's paragraph that you deleted and use the following url as a reference? https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9780960855827 Thanks!

• A quick overview of Stevens' "work" will tell you that he is not a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • --Jamesgtmoore (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC) The same criticism could easily be said about some of the other already referenced authors. This page is quite negative towards Billy Meier. Please therefore add the Wendelle Stevens paragraph back in to give the page a more unbiased approach to the subject.

    That is a weird justification. "Please add an unreliable source to give more balance between sane and crazy." Please read WP:GEVAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

    • I was just pointing out how nonsensical his justification was. Are you guys on the payroll of the CIA or similar intelligence organization by any chance? Such great enthusiasm to keep a page about an alien contactee totally negatively biased against him is quite astonishing. It takes 3 guys to gang up against me to keep this page in the negative field. That's another astonishing fact about this free but totally politically controlled encyclopedia.