Talk:Steven M. Greer

Skeptism

Removed for the following reasons:

1 Evidence for which claims:

Success of CESTI "training"? Already covered in the article

Evidence for claims made in the "Disclosure Project? he has provided much evidence at this conferences with, testimony, photographic, documents, etc. You might not agree with the evidence but it is there nevertheless. The7thdr (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not evidence, it's conjecture. This is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of guesswork. If it was actual evidence, the entire disclosure project wouldn't be required. Dave420 (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If there weren't people like Dave420, we wouldn't need the disclosure project -- signed by a skeptic who decided to treat this material fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.211.95 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed "Commercial activities" section

What ever your opinion may be, the fact is it had no citations or sources. If you can find these, feel free to reinstate the section. Clown666 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Clown666, Oddly I had only cleaned-up to this section and missed that it had no references for some reason. They have now been added with additional information also referenced and added to. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The7thdr (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

I started what I thought would be some simple cleanup. As I looked closer, I found more and more promotional information without any supporting independent, reliable sources. I ended up trimming the article back quite a bit before deciding to tag it and take a break to see what others think. --Ronz (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored the CSETI section. This wasn't an advertisement at all, but about his possible commercial gains from UFO research, which I and the other impartial editors who wrote this section think is important information. The CSETI section arose out of a seperate article, which was merged with this one. It has reliable sources for its existence as documented in the AfD below. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CSETI&redirect=no (the history page)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CSETI

The references for the cost and nature of his programs don't need reliable sources; it's enough that we link to his page with his own information on the programs. They are a reliable source for that particular information.

I inadvertently removed the advertisement tag when I reverted; if you still think it reads like an advert then please put it back. Phil153 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Without independent, reliable, secondary sources, we have NPOV problems, if not outright advertising problems. I think it's worthwhile to find sources from the old article to rewrite the section per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the current section *is* NPOV, so it'd be good to get other opinions. I didn't write the current version about his commercial activities, I just merged the CSETI article with this section. It appears the section was written by skeptcial editors who weren't trying to advertise.

I'll see what I can do to add some RS. The only reason I reverted is because the CSETI section needs to stay in some form, since there's no consensus to delete per the AfD. Please don't let the revert stop you from editing it further. Phil153 (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with you about advertising. I'm going through the article now and it's a mess, with few RS. Phil153 (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some fixing up. Let me know if this is sufficient to remove the advertising tag. Phil153 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

What a bunch of nonsense to delete all the entries made about the Orion Project, CSETI and AERO. It really seems that people just feel frustrated by the whole subject of UFO's, so they make up silly reasons to delete as much of the references to it as possible. Why silly? Because reasons like, "this is actually a advertisement" and "this is not a neutral point of view" are used to rigorously delete total sections, instead of editing them. The stories of the Orion Project, CSETI and AERO, really are part of the story of Steven Greer. You can find the UFO issue a bunch of nonsense, or you can be scared about, even insulted in religious/scientific belief.... still deletion won't bring you a solution.

Funny, those poor souls in the dark..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.36.48.160 (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, why in the world is the information about the Orion Project, CSETI & AERO etc. deleted? I smell disinformation. This is really making me angry, and is why I don't consider Wikipedia a credible resource!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.183.69 (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

CSETI is mentioned in the article in relation to its prominence in secondary sources, which is scant but existent. AERO has no notability, having not been covered in any secondary sources. The Orion Project is slightly better but similar. The last two organization are basically attempts to solicit donations to build perpetual motion machines or other devices that violate laws of thermodynamics. These organizations are no more notable than any others, who are also not mentioned. Phil153 (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added the sections on CSETI, and the Orion Project. Just because these organizations carry out commercial activities we cannot just delete them on the assumption that - by including them - the article might look like an advertisement? I mean, come on... Guilt by association? I have also deleted the sentence which contained the word "fees" just to satisfy the anti-advertisement crusaders.. I-netfreedOm (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The changes aren't satisfactory. It's not the mention of "fees" that is advertising, it's the mention of his non notable non profit project in the top of lead that seeks to give free energy to the world. Pure advertising. You also inserted the text about his "sharing the platform with notables" twice. In addition, some stuff was removed that puts his beliefs in perspective; it looks like whitewashing to me. In short, nothing was salvagable from your revision. I'd certainly agree to including some mention of the Orion Project provided it's neutral and not in the lead, which was too long already per WP:Lead before it was scaled back. Phil153 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I added neutral mention of the Orion Project and Aero in the appropriate section. Phil153 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise, moving them there. However, I removed the references, as they were self-published. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but your formulations doesn't satisfy the neutral language required in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Furthermore the re-inserted sentence about the signs of alien contact was written in a tone which discredits the subject of the article. Also, you have not provided source that the Orion Project aims to produce perpetual motion devices. I cannot find any references in the Wikipedia standards which prohibits the mentioning of someones commercial projects in the first section of his BIO on the basis that it could be interpreted as advertisement. I can understand your antipathy against the whole subject however you have to stay neutral and doesn't label/remove anything positive about the subject just because you think it is "whitewashing". I have intentionally not undo-ed your editing because my aim is a consensus which satisfies both sides. Absent of that we would only face a long and exhausting journey of undoes and redoes which would not bring the matter further.I-netfreedOm (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Here's what I did: [1]

• I trimmed the least notable information from the lead, per WP:Lead. The remaining version is still a bit long
• I removed the duplicate information about his presentations from the lead (this should be non controversial).
• I restored the bit about him charging a fee (it's extremely relevant that he's commercially active in the UFO community).
• I restored the bit about the signs of alien contact, which is from his own book, and offered as evidence of contact when you don't actually see an alien or spacecraft after trying a CE5. If he doesn't want it quoted, he shouldn't say it. If you think the words are discrediting, then the subject's own words discredit him; not anything written here. The sentence in question is actually used to balance the bit about there not being any photographic evidence; Greer is in effect claiming that absent actually seeing aliens, other signs of contact exist, which validate the success of CE5 contact attempts for people who take his workshops and read his books. In other words, aliens are "shy" and will show up but not give themselves away too readily.
• As for the Orion project, it's not notable at all, and doesn't belong in the already too long lead. It probably doesn't belong in the article, but it got added as a compromise. As for perpetual motion devices, this was the reference given. The entire reference, and in particular this sentence: "system would run utilizing only the heat from the environment" is plainly a claim of perpetual motion and contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I agree it's close to the line though, so I'll bring this up at the fringe theories noticeboard and see what they think. Phil153 (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the theory you've laid out all geothermal and solar devices are perpetual motion devices because they would solely run on the energy which they derive from the environment. Dr. Greer clearly states under http://www.disclosureproject.org/ES-DisclosureImplications-2.htm that he is not in the business of creating such a device nor violating the the laws of thermodynamics. I have to draw your attention to the fact that the version of the article after the second AfD discussion has been reviewed by the closing admin and found(quote) "...article portraying him in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism." As far as I can see you dispute these results. And no, the result of the AfD discussions was not only that the subject was notable but during the debate the whole article as such has been worked upon until a compromise was reached. What is your take on that? I-netfreedOm (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Geothermals runs on temperature gradients and solar devices run on incoming radiation. What Greer is proposing is an over unity heat pump. Also see Carnot_cycle#Properties_and_significance. This is obvious to any physicist. However, I agree it's close to the line as far as OR goes so I've asked for clarification here and I wouldn't object to you removing "perpetual motion device" until it's settled.

As for your comments about AfD, by my reading you have misunderstand the comments, as well as the purpose of an AfD. The closing admin of the second AfD did NOT say what you suggest. Nor did the closing admin of the first AfD, who said I'd like to point out that deleting an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is not to delete the article but rather make sure that the man is portrayed in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism and there appears to be enough of both to construct a balanced article here. He made no mention of the current state of the article itself and did not endorse any particular verison. Even if they did, this does not prejudice further editing by consensus, such as that which has happened over the last 6+ months. Phil153 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits are a good compromise. I removed mention of heat pumps since he does more than that, and the organizations also research more than just allegedly suppressed alien technology, so I changed the text to reflect that. Hope that is ok. Phil153 (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that we have found a consensus. Regarding the other deleted parts I have to add that the aforementioned admin was right when stating that there were balanced praise and criticism in the article. However Greer's BIO is currently unbalanced because various editors removed some of the praises by labeling them as advertisement. I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The admin wasn't saying the article at the time of the AfD was balanced, merely that there was sufficient sourced information to construct an article that could portray him fairly. Anyway, what fair praise do you want to include? I had a look at your reversion and the only thing I can see that won't be contentious is the rewording of the section that beings with "Greer, along with people from either a military or government background". The other stuff about his programs is very advertising like - maybe some minor modifications would fly but I don't think they could be put back to where they were. As for "Greer is frequently invited" in the lead, if you can find a reliable source that states that, it can go back in. The bit about "sharing the podium with notables" that you reinserted was still in there, and hasn't been removed. The insertion created a duplicate, which is why it was removed. Phil153 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to include the section you've mentioned "....Greer, along with people from..." because there is enough evidence that people from military and/or government background came forward about the alleged suppression of this information(see video ). Regarding frequent invitations there are many articles under Google News which support the claim that he is an often invited guest. For the sake of consensus I accept that the Orion Project is not in the lead section however I disagree with that. You are right about "commercial activities" where a cleanup was indeed necessary. I strongly disagree with the section "dog barking, ... , hair standing up" section. I don't now whether this quote is correct or not. Even if it is correct it was taken out of context in order to negatively portray him.I-netfreedOm (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I agree the "barking" text could be prejudicial, so I've removed it. However, it's part of a long list of stuff he's said or printed that many might consider kooky; a fair article would include samples of that as appropriate neutral commentary. So something of his quoted claims are going to get put back in, and it may make him look worse than what's there now. The way I see Greer, he's making a good living off selling alien stuff to gullible people (this is an unreferenced opinion), and claiming everday experiences as evidence of contact is a good way to swindle who pay money for CE5 conferences and experiences and expect results. I wouldn't care if they were just idiots, but many are mentally ill, poor, or otherwise unfortunate.

By the way, I'm curious about your interest in this article; it's the only subject you've had anything to do with since you joined nearly a year ago. You don't seem like a strong fan either. You don't have to answer, just my personal curiosity. Phil153 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved my comment to the talk page of Phil153 (talk). I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved mine as well. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I added back the perpetual motion text, since this is supported. See [2] and Stanley Meyer. Phil153 (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The first and second law of thermodynamics only apply to "closed systems". It's by no means proven that the either the micro- or macro-level of the universe comply to that axiom. It's proposed that a technological application is constructed, which captures on a systemic level the stacked-up dynamics of atomic, sub-atomic and smaller phenomena/particles (into the infinitely small). "Perpetual motion" is not the accurate label for such application. Such an application would as Tesla put "hook to the very wheel works of nature".DoorTablePhone (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy?

Are there no controversies or critics of Greer? Seems a few sentences from that angle could be added for balance.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree that would be nice 173.164.132.50 (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There obviously is, considering the theme, and related commercial activities. Have anyone looked at the price of attending an event? But I guess that this article also falls under the rules of "biographies of living persons". But anyway, the Ufology field itself is controversial and known to be feeding on conjectural fringe hypotheses, conspiracy theories, without actual scientific evidence. A number of related organizations could even be categorized as religious cults (with beliefs in the paranormal, telepathy, alien guides, origin myths, superstitions), which are opposed to the advancement of actual knowledge and reason.

So to get back on topic, while following the guidelines of WP:BLP, we could perhaps simply mention the commercial nature of the activities, with a reference to an actual documents (or archives to them) advertizing an event along with the involved fee (without dedicating a section on criticism)? Unfortunately, according to the article's history and talk page, previously existing criticism in the article has been deleted. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The recent illegal detention of an audience in Joshua Tree, CA (Aug 11th? 2013), along with the new evidence against the claims of Atacama as an "alien" are at least two prominent cases that warrant a 'controversies' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdevans (talk • contribs) 06:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Second source verifies the 'lockdown' or 'detention' [3]. Eye witness claims of woman trying to leave the Greer speech: "Apparently she has a condition of some sort & also was extremely hot yet the guards didn't open the door to let her out.". -- include this in 'controversial' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.229.148.138 (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Greer's education

I cannot find any sources that substantiate Greers education. I have therefore removed the copy below which can be added back into the articleand info box if sources are found.

• Quillen College of Medicine
  Appalachian State University
  Maharishi International University-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I found a source for two of those and added it to the text.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Great thanks,-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'm not sure I'd consider this to be a good source. Its primary at best and an unknown PDF at worst. Also, teacher training courses in TM have been held on the MUM campus and may be what he is referring to. I don't know that these kind of courses were credit bearing or sanctioned in anyway by the university. Can you quote the source and give the context for this educational claim?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be an autobiography hosted on the subject's website, so it is reliable as a self-published source for a non-exceptional claim.

• In 1974, I left the traditional college at Boone to enter teacher training at Maharishi International University in Iowa.

Is there any reason to doubt this? What authority do you have to speak about the classes the university offered in 1974?   Will Beback  talk  23:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the source is primary, self-published and vague and do not feel its a Reliable Source. I don't mind having the quote, properly attributed in the article, because BLP is more lenient in that regard, but it's not reliable enough to carry forward to other articles.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are pushing so hard on this. He says he attended MIU. This isn't controversial.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only controversial if he didn't (but I'm not claiming that :) 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

New Energy Movement speaker list as a source

I tagged http://www.newenergymovement.org/speakers.php as unreliable. It's definitely self-published. Usually, such bios are simply submitted by the speaker, with perhaps some editing for tone. Given the history of the article, I thought I'd start a conversation rather than simply removing it per WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them, other than as a source for his internet radio segment, which is probably the least controversial use of the ref. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I only used it cuz there is so little to be found on this guy. Thanks for the note.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about proper representation of the actual sources

I undid recent changes due to the following reasons:

1. Sources should appear as early as they are needed. This is a scientific principle. For example: All abreviations in an abstract have to be explained when they are mentioned for the first time. It doesn't matter whether they or their explanation appears later on.

2. "Take it to the talk page" is a good idea. Well, then do it? Why didn't you? Here it is. What is your reasoning? Why didn't you present any arguments? The changes I have made are faithful to the given sources. The old version was full of factual errors and had nothing to do with the actual content of the sources. I can go into the details if necessary. It should go without question that if sources are used those that are using them are required to actually read them. Metaferon (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The burden is on you if you want your additions. I'm not clear on what if any factual errors exist, or how your additions address them. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be WP:REFSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Metaferon, don't take this as an insult but when I read your comments I read them in an Alan Keyes voice. Anyway, as to your first point, it's not an abstract, it's an introduction. The introduction is supposed to be a brief summary of the article, sources should be in the body. As to your second point, please see Ronz's statement above. The text you added had loaded language and was opposed by at least one other editor, that's all I needed to see. BrendanFrye (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bodybuilder?

If Greer's bodybuilding achievements were noted in Muscle & Fitness that would be one thing; but a YouTube video where he claims to be able to press X number of pounds? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I think short-term, partial protection is in order. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

As poorly sourced material in a WP:BLP, it should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is now partial protected. Perhaps now we'll get some discussion from those that would like to find a way to appropriately add the information? --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll request longer protection, since the ip's are at it again, while no one has bothered to join the discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not know why certain vandals are trying to keep the body-building part out of this article. This is clearly a large part of his occupation, which is empasized in his quasi-autobiographical sources and on top, all of his speeches which are available freely. At least, there has to be mentioned as a sidenote in this article.77.185.20.46 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a vandal and I removed the bodybuilder adjective from the lead on Sept 5th [4] because it was sourced using a YouTube video which is a violation of WP:RS and because the the claim of him being a body builder on the YOUTUBE vid was self reported and only a passing mention in a long lecture. I don't mind it being in the article as long as it is information that is reliably sourced. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and encourage the edit warring IPs to bring discussion here rather than use edit summaries. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the You Tube vids cited are not Reliable Sources and cannot be cited per WP:EL [5] which states "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked to." The YouTube vids cited are posted by private parties and are copyright violations as those private parties do not have rights to that content. Furthermore, as stated previously, they make only a self-reported, passing mention. If his bodybuilding career is notable then it should have been reported in news reports etc. Let's find some of those and then the info can be placed in the article. Its obvious the guy is no stranger to the gym but we need a reliable source that says he enters competitions and stuff before we can call him a bodybuilder in the article. Even his own bio, doesn't mention anything about bodybuilding. [6]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Review of all sources

Today I went through and examined all the sources and edited per the sources. Adding relevant and removing unsourced text. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Misc

There is written and video testimonial of Dr. Greer leading his interviewees into saying things and actually giving them money to say certain things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.88.231 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for this assertion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MD / DO

Why was it changed by user IP 86.20.195.192? It seems to be invalid information. Steven Greer did an MD not a DO a this source tells (http://www.vahealthprovider.com/results_generalinfo.asp?License_No=0101057732). Northwolf56 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I took care of it.  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It was reverted back do DO by IP 81.159.227.206, which is a false information. The information (source 1) clearly shows he's an MD and trained at Med school, but IP seems to push on it for whatever reason. Any ideas Keithbob? Northwolf56 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I put it back to MD. Northwolf56 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The line "He attended Osteopathic Post Grad School at the MAHEC(...)" is incorrect information. In the education section (source 1) it clearly says "MAHEC - University of North Carolina, Family Medicine", not Osteopathy. Northwolf56 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)) Maybe changing the sentence to "He attended Medical Post Grad School in the area of Family Medicine at MAHEC(...)" would be an idea? Northwolf56 (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points, I've modified the text but the reference to Family Medicine is cryptic and I'd rather not include it until we can find a source that clarifies it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

To the IP.... I ask that you please quote where the source says Greer is an osteopath before you make any more changes. I do not see any indication of that. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the Osteopath to MD in the picture info, so it fits the evidence. Northwolf56 (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, I've reverted the IP today who insists on Osteopathy. I've noted in the edit summary that he/she should come to the talk page and discuss. [7] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Alpha Omega Alpha

I found evidence for his claim of being a member of said medical honors society (http://www.alphaomegaalpha.org/search.php). His name is near the bottom, it reads the following: "Steven Macon Greer 115-R-1987-0069199" (http://www.alphaomegaalpha.org/search.php). Should that be included in the main text? Northwolf56 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but your links don't work and a search yields no results for me. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The links are dead, how strange. Okay I found a work around, go to the page and put "Greer" into the "Locate a Member" search field. I hope that works. Northwolf56 (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Northwolf56 is right; The website of Alpha Omega Alpha clearly states Greer as "Steven Macon Greer" as a member with membership number "115-R-1987-0069199". However, to get this information, one has to use the "Locate a Member" search function on the site. It's not possible to give a direct link to this information.

Some people have called into question the general relevance of the information, without giving any further argumentation. I don't agree. My first argument is that it's well between the limits WP:BLPSOURCES give for relevant information. Second argument is that Greer's membership of Alpha Omega Alpha is an important piece of information regarding his Medical Career and the general credence about it.

Some people have called into question the reliability of the Alpha Omega Alpha, without giving any further argumentation. I don't agree. If you take a look at WP:RS, you can see that the most important aspects that determine reliability are "Definition of source" and "Context matters". The latter is completely relevant in this case. The information that is used from the source is so extremely basic (membership yes/no), that it should be regarded as completely reliably in support of the information presented in the article.Aw aw415 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm OK with a simple statement saying he is a member but a search for Steven Greer on the AOA page yields no results. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange your search doesn't work. You sure? If I fill "Greer" into the field "Locate a Member", I get a page with results which has "Steven Macon Greer" near the bottom. Also he's reported in the Journal of Alpha Omega Alpha; "The Pharos of Alpha Omega Alpha, Volume 50", here [8]. And he's also reported as a new member of Alpha Omega Alpha in 1987, but this is visible only through webarchive, here: [9] I see some conspiracy/kook websites do report about Greer's Alpha Omega Alpha membership, but so far found none in any mainstream news (who really are fact-checking and report on notable stuff... ugh ugh...) Aw aw415 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's odd, when I searched the members section for Steven M. Greer and Steven Greer it yields no result, HOWEVER, using the search term Greer does yield a list that contains Steven Macon Greer. I think these three sources are good enough for such a simple statement that has not been called into question by any other publications. So I've added it to the article. If others disagree we can discuss it here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• 1) Any third party coverage of this fact? I haven't seen any. 2) What is the significance of this fact to this individual's notability? He's not notable as a physician at all. 3) Is a student membership in AOA so inherently notable that we would include the detail in any individual's encyclopedic biography based on the primary source alone? Given the relevance to notability (little to none), its inclusion simply invites WP:BOMBARDment in primary sources on a tangential topic. JFHJr (㊟) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinion but I don't agree. I think its OK for a BLP's company titles or awards or degrees to be cited to the primary source that gave the degree or the title or the award etc. Primary sources are permitted on WP as long as they don't form the basis of the article per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS I think the sources cited are acceptable for this basic piece of biographical information which no other source casts any doubt upon. What do other editors think?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Birthdate

Anyone want to explain the dispute over the birthdate? Is someone claiming the 1955 sourcing is unreliable? If that's the case, then the date should be removed until a better source is found. --Ronz (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Yoga Journal (page 72) says 1955 [10] so unless we have an RS that says otherwise we should keep it at 1955. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional Information

In the article it says that Astronaut Gordon Cooper is a witness, according to this source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKWElDHhY4) is Astronaut Edgar Mitchell a witness for the Disclosure Project too. Furthermore Dr. Steven Greer has a blog (http://drgreersblog.disclosureproject.org/) and a gives out new information via twitter (https://twitter.com/DrStevenGreer). Would these pieces of information be useful for the article? Just a quick thought, the Disclosure Project is not described anywhere, a short paragraph between the sections career and personal life could shed some light on that one. Any thoughts? Northwolf56 (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. What we need are some reliable secondary sources. The one's that you have cited are not suitable (Youtube, twitter and Greer's website). We need something from a mainstream news article or an independently published book etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, info about the Disclosure Project doesn't belong in this article as its tangential. If the DP has received notable media coverage then we could create a dedicated article for that topic. Thanks again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

How much is "notable media coverage"? Would a CNN and a CBS news coverage be enough? They're in youtube (maybe in the news archives too), but in this case they might be worth to consider. Northwolf56 (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Northwolf, you can check WP:CORP for details about notability requirements for organizations like the DP. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

10 Years Medical Career notable?

One user has suggested that it is not notable that Greer had an active clinical practice for 10 years (as the Virginia Board of Medicine clearly states). I think that's not true. The user hasn't provided any further argumentation. My argument is that, because Greer is involved in a highly controversial area (UFO's and extraterristrial intelligence), his substantially background as a Medical Doctor is very relevant and notable, because it's adds to the controverse of the whole situation; why would a successfull Medical Doctor give up his high-salary career for something as controversial as the UFO thing.Aw aw415 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:SYN. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What's your argument for WP:SYN? I don't think it applies here. There is no synthesis on the 10 years Medical Career. It is explicitly stated by the Virgina Board of Medicine. The point I was making above could be seen as a synthesis, but I don't make that point in the article... I make it here... on the talk page. Very different thing.Aw aw415 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument made for inclusion is syn. You make it here to further a position: that it is worth noting in the article itself.

And look at all the primary sources being used without other sources in a BLP... --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Medical honors REQUIRE verifiable third party coverage to indicate significance. Consensus does and will continue to support this. Please refrain from reinserting "Alpha Omega Alpha" information and claims without encyclopedically reliable sources. The horse's mouth does not indicate any significance. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 17:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not only is having a private practice not notable (ie no news coverage about it) but the primary source does not say that. It only says when he was issued a license. Furthermore the source you are citing [11] says the information there is self-reported by the BLP subject. The source says: "Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been self-reported and has not been verified by the Board of Medicine."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You got the wrong page for that source Keithbob. It's on "general information", here: [12]. It was already removed by JFHJr due to "requiring third party cites to establish significance. someone somewhere other than greer and the org should have cared enough to report". Also, I believe it doesn't mean "having a private practice" but instead means "having practiced Medicine in general". But you guys think it's not notable. I don't agree, but see that Wikipedia rules can be applied in such manner (then can be applied in all kinds of ways... arbitary, to defame, but also WP:IAR). The other argument is quite valid; that it's not been verified by the Board of Medicine. Still, I think the info could have been presented along with short comment/warning about it's validity. I noticed that controversial subjects attract exclusionist wikipedians, which is fine, but which can make it hard for a good article to grow. But whatever, in the end what matters is: you guys are in the majority and have more Wikipedia hours. So I leave it at that.Aw aw415 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aw and thanks for pointing me to the right page for that source. You are correct it does indicate 10 years of clinical practice, however, it also says the info is self-reported by Greer. So there are two issues here for me 1) is the reliability of the source is questionable (user submitted with no oversight) and 2) the information is not notable ie. not published or highlighted in secondary sources like newspaper and magazine articles.

Yesterday I spent some time searching the news archives for Greer and I added some info to the article about his credentials and activities both medical and UFO. I read several news articles and most mentioned his emergency room work but none mentioned his private practice or said how many years he was in private practice. So we do what we can based on the sources. For a bio of a living person like this the rules of WP:BLP are the foundation of our editing here and they emphasize reliable secondary sources both for praise and criticism. WP:IAR is sometimes applied but only in rare instances where there is a consensus that the policy is standing in the way of common sense progress. I don't see that here, but I also understand and respect that you do.

I also understand how it must feel to a rather new editor to be "ganged up on" like this and I apologize for that. Its not intentional. In addition to good faith editors like yourself there are too often those that come to WP with a personal agenda that is unproductive. As a result of that some of us may become a bit jaded and little too defensive or abrupt. I apologize for that and I hope that you will continue to be involved and contribute to Wikipedia, both on this article and others. Let me know if I can be of assistance at any time. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

References

More mainstream coverage

I found some more mainstream media coverage of Greer. These are good sources, which provide a lot more information. I'm going to take a look at what might be suitable to include in the article, but I also understand there is a risk of running into the limits of WP:COATRACK, etc. The sources possibly could also just be included under a "Further Reading" or "External Links" heading. Some help/advise of critical Wikipedians would be nice. Here are the sources:
Outside Magazine - Sept 1994 - ALIEN BROTHERS, COME ON DOWN!
The Deseret News - May 1997 - Space aliens? And nobody told us?
The Albany Herald - Aug 1998 - Project looks at existence of other life
The Register - Jul 2006 - SETI urged to fess up over alien signals
The Vindicator - Jan 2009 - An out-of-this-world course
Another reasonable source:
PRweb - May 2006 - A Toronto Press Conference on UFO Disclosure Sponsored by Exopolitics Toronto with Dr. Steven M. Greer and the Hon. Paul HellyerFrankRadioSpecial (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

PRWeb is categorically not reliable. It is a press release outlet. See WP:SPS and, in this case, WP:BLPSPS. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I found several articles that included Greer but mostly he is just quoted as an expert on UFO's and very little info is given about his life. And I'm glad you are aware of the coatrack issue. We need info about Greer and things he has done. What we don't want is info about organizations that he is director of. That's a different topic. We also don't want info about the govt coverup and the whole UFO controversy etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at all these sources and there was not much there except to say that he's an emergency room doc and a UFO expert. There is a lot of criticism in the Outdoor mag and The Register articles which we might consider summarizing and adding to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think if there is a similarity between at least 3 articles in a certain criticism, then it would be appropriate to include it (summerized). Otherwise it's just an opinion of the journalist, or even an sensationally written article in which the author wasn't even completely honest/objective/complying to good journalistic conduct. FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional coverage

Hi, I've found some more "articles" & sources:

0) http://www.disclosureproject.org/PCR-May23-DWillis-L.htm 1) http://www.disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/LaSemaineSGreerMay2007.pdf 2) http://www.disclosureproject.org/transcripts/JeanNoelBassior1.htm 3) http://www.earthtech.org/publications/2005%20-%20JBIS%20-%20Inflation-Theory%20Implications.pdf 4) http://www.disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/ScienceArticle1.pdf 5) http://www.disclosureproject.org/docs/pdf/MediaResponseToMay9thEvent.pdf

Media (yeah its youtube but its still the CNN and CBS): CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKPeMuKQ9yE&feature=player_embedded CBS http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZfudvC01f7Q Northwolf56 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The website "disclosureproject.org" is primary source, which is a huge issue regarding Wikipedia policy on verifiability: WP:V. The paper on the earthtech.org website doesn't have any information on Greer in it, nor is it written by Greer. I don't see any reason to include that paper. I think the video's don't really have problems with verifiability. However for the video's the problem is notability; why would these be included in an encyclopedia? In support of what information not yet present in the article? Maybe they are more appropriate for wikinews.com ? FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Disclosure Project is in several cases not the primary source, it just tends to collate articles and sources concerning itself (like a historic archive). Examples are source 0) its a CBS response by Dan Willis, source 1) is in La Semaine by France Gauthier, source 2) is by Hustler magazine, source 3) is by the JBIS (Journal of the British Interplanetary society, JBIS vol.58,pp.43-50, 2005), source 4) is by the Journal of Scientific Exploration (H. E. Puthoff, JSE, 1995), source 5) is by Jonathan Kolber not Dr. Greer. The info is about Greer's work not about him (we've got enough about his person I think), as my list was intended as an additional answer to "More Mainstream Media Coverage" with the addition of his work. The videos just show that the Disclosure Project was in the "mainstream media" coverage back in the days,which might justify a little summary about the Disclosure Project in Greer's article. However this last part of the discussion (about the Disclosure Project being part in Greer's article) should be discussed up in the section. Northwolf56 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

More organizations by Greer

It is known that Greer has founded more organizations then just CSETI and the Disclosure Project. As far as I can tell there are/were:

• "Space Energy Access Systems", a company, founded in 2001 [13]
  
• "Advanced Energy Research Organizations, Inc", a research and development group/company, founded in 2007 [14]
  
• "The Orion Project", a non-profit 501c3 foundation, founded in 2008 [15]
  
• "Sirius Technology Advanced Research, LLC", an Foreign Limited-Liability Company, probably founded in 2012 [16]
  
• "Sirius Disclosure", an umbrella organization/research project, probably founded in 2012 [17]
  

For a complete bio it could be fair to make minimal mention of these organizations. The problem is that these organizations have not (or very minimally) been reported on by mainstream media sources, but instead have been extensively reported on by self-published, alternative, conspiracy and/or kook sources. Conclusion: exclude it all, or is there an other option?FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good research Frank. Here's my comments:

SPEAS, the source is a web archive from 2004. How do we know when he started or left the position? There seems to be no current web site for his company.

AERO, same as above

Orion, I don't see anywhere on the site where it states Greer is director, founder etc.

SIRIUS on Bizapedia, this says he is the "registered agent" for the company, that means he the contact person for the LLC, not very notable

SIRIUS, I don't see Greer mentioned as producer, founder etc.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Register called him CEO of SEAS in 2006 so I've added that to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SEAS and AERO have been discontinued, so I think they are more of historic value. Northwolf56 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But does that mean they should be removed from the article? Or should there by a rephrase? FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a rephrase like "Dr. Greer founded SEAS and AERO which have been discontinued(...)" would do the job? Otherwise we could leave it out completely as SEAS and AERO don't seem to play any importance today. Northwolf56 (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize reliable sources. I was careful to do this when I added the text by saying "as of 2006 Greer was CEO of SEAS" (something like that). I'm not sure I agree just because they appear to have been discontinued that they are not of historic value. Just because someone quits a job or moves to another place doesn't mean we take that info out of an article. Also we have no secondary source (that I know of) that says SEAS and AERO have been discontinued. Nor do we have any RS that says Greer was part of AERO (far as I know).-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't logic say that if a company doesn't give updates since 2005 (http://web.archive.org/web/20070207034731/http://www.seaspower.com/latestnews.htm) was taken over by annother company at it's domain http://web.archive.org/web/20080114062643/http://www.seaspower.com/) and has a website which has been discontinued (http://www.seaspower.com/indexcf.php) and is therefore unavailable for access and customers, be seen as defunct? The successor seems to be the Orion Project (http://www.theorionproject.org/en/index.html), as it treats the same areas of research. I think it's a bit frustrating that there doesn't seem to be any "official" information about these kind of things.But if you want to keep it I don't mind. Northwolf56 (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"Orion, I don't see anywhere on the site where it states Greer is director, founder etc" Well,in the past he was part of the board of directors (http://web.archive.org/web/20080322011552/http://www.theorionproject.org/en/about.html), if that is of any help. In this past Orion published information it seems to suggest that Dr. Greer is the "boss" of the Orion Project (http://web.archive.org/web/20080322004634/http://www.theorionproject.org/en/breakthrough.html). Northwolf56 (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Concerns

• a press conference at the National Press Club in D.C that featured "20 retired Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration and intelligence officers" who demanded that Congress begin hearings on "secret U.S. involvement with UFOs and extraterrestrials"[16][4][17] and was described by an attending BBC reporter as "the strangest ever news conference hosted by Washington's August National Press Club."[18] The claims presented at the conference were met with by derision by skeptics and spokespeople for the U. S. Air Force who maintain that there is no convincing evidence for the speculation that UFOs are alien spacecraft.[
  • I don't like the content above as it is not about Greer. Instead it's about the public's reaction to info given by presenters at the conference. It opens the door for a lot of off topic controversy about UFO claims Greer makes. Its OK to say Greer held a press conference with 20 AF and FAA's, but that is all the article should say IMO. Comments?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The second part of the sentence isn't about Greer, so it arguably shouldn't be on this Wikipedia page. However, it could be argued that it should be in a separate Wikipedia page on the Disclosure Project. Problem is, there was a separate page, but that was merged with this page on Greer after a good discussion between Wikipedians. This could be the conclusion: the Steven Greer page should just be about him and his direct activities, the Disclosure Project isn't notable enough to have its own page, so more detailed information on the Disclosure Project can't be fitted into Wikipedia, period. Unless you want to open up the old discussion? There could be more mainstream sources now and with the upcoming Sirius movie, the old Diclosure Project might be gaining in notability now as well. Still, these aren't really strong arguments. FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts Frank. The central issue I think is WP:NOTABILITY. If something is not notable then it doesn't belong on WP. If DP starts getting mainstream press then it will be notable and could have its own article. But in the meantime the non-notable stuff about DP shouldn't be' stored' in Greer's BLP in my opinion. However, I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of folks at the BLP noticeboard just to have some input both on this article and the issue in general as it comes up on other BLP's too. It would be interesting to know/hear how the community views it. Would you mind if I put a post there about this? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More food for thought: The discussion about merger can be seen here. According to WP:MERGE and article merge can be "full" or "selective". So in my view, one would only selectively merge those aspects of the DP article that were directly related to Greer. At least that's how I view it, but others may have a different view. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on the conversation above, I've removed the text that describes and comments on the content of the press conference. If anyone disagrees we can talk further. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, there was little encyclopedic value to that sentence.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Woolsey Briefing

Regarding the sentence: That year he gave a briefing to "members of the Clinton administration, including then-CIA director James Woolsey".[18] The website ufowatchdog.com (skeptic, self-published) published a 1999 letter in which Woolsey and others challenge Greer's words/labels on their meeting.

• Woolsey-Petersen Letter on Meeting with Greer
  

If the letter is indeed genuine, I think it's quite significant that a former CI Director even admits meeting with Greer. Off course, Wikipedia can't include any of this while the source isn't reliable (especially in case of WP:BLP). However, the sentence above might be a little biased, especially when it's only based on 1 mainsteam media source (the article in the The Columbian). Maybe instead of briefing call it a just a meeting, or an alleged meeting? I wanted fellow Wikipedians to see this, so maybe they can get find better sources on it, or advise on the rephrase.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Columbian would take precedence over the UFO web site I think and I believe the CIA briefing is mentioned in multiple sources. I look again at the sources and try to add more citations and also check the wording of the sources carefully to make sure we are not overstating anything. We want the article to be accurate. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe for fairness Dr. Greer's answer to the "ufowatchdog" letter should be included in some form as well (http://new.cseti.org/position-papers/14-position-papers/25-art-dr-greer-s-response-to-former-director-of-central-intelligence-woolsey-s-letter-re-1993-briefing.html). Northwolf56 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to include info from UFOwatchdog.com or the CSETI web site as both are primary sources and not considered reliable for controversial text. What we have in the article now is:

He gave a briefing to the Clinton administration which included CIA director James Woolsey" that same year.[10][11][12]

Which is sourced to three secondary source news articles per WP:RS requirements. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. Woolsey & Peterson never got any of the sources to rectify, nor any other mainstream source to report on their version of events. The only thing that is in the public domain is letter published by a UFO website (although a skeptic one), without any further proof of its validity. This Wikipedia article can always be changed if new reliable sources come up with more information. FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Would this article be in any way useful (http://www.presidentialufo.com/bill-clinton/106-extraterrestrial-politics-part-2-cia-director-james-woolsey-gets-a-ufo-briefing)? By the way, Dr. Greer's response to the CIA letter came with the suggestion by an "editor of a small UFO newsletter (CNI News)". Now CNI had been discontinued (somebody else took the domain name for an unrelated news service),I wanted to know who that editor was and I found this (http://rense.com/general/cnibye.htm). So it could have been Michael Lindemann. If anyone wants to take it from here. Here's an additional source for the story (http://www.x-ppac.org/Press_Releases.html) Northwolf56. (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Northwolf and thanks for your research. Unfortunately all of the three URL's you have provided are for primary/first person sources and are rarely acceptable for assertions made in a BLP article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the three sources. Two are nothing more than warmed-over press releases hyping local events. The third is slightly more than warmed-over, but it's still just hype for a local event. These are not reliable sources. They are publicity pieces. If they're used at all, it should be made clear that they are only Greer's claims, nothing more. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Publication lists

Publication lists require citations to third party sources indicating their significance. A bare mention is not indicative of significance. Publication lists should stay out until third party coverage is found. Otherwise, it runs afoul of WP:WEIGHT, as well as the basic principle of citation. Any further assistance in removing that uncontextualized section, whose population has zero indication of significance, would be most appreciated. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a list of his publication at World Cat [19] which seems reliable to me. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Also, I note that a list of publications, regardless of the notability is permitted in bios and BLP's. For example here is a very comprehensive list from a Featured Article called Chinua Achebe. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely mainstream news will report on his books in detail. So in this reading of Wikipedia's policies, JFHJr is right.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid World Cat is just a listing. It's not a review or coverage indicating significance. If any individual publication is shown to be significant, we can use World Cat listings to augment sourcing. The difference between this person and Chinua Achebe is clearly that the latter is notable as an author. This person isn't (or else coverage of his writings would be more readily available). Achebe's list of writings doesn't present WP:UNDUE weight considering his widely recognized notability in writing. This subject is not similar. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So what you seem to be saying is that if a person is well known as an author then they may have a publication list in their WP BLP and it may include many non-notable and uncited publications in their FA status article. However if a person is notable as UFOlogist, but not as an author, then his publications and books on the topic of his notability (UFO's) are held to a wholly different standard and that BLP's publication list must cite secondary sources for each publication otherwise they cannot appear in that BLP. Is there any policy or guideline that supports this double standard? I'm not aware of one. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm saying publications need third party sources to merit inclusion as significant. I don't actually agree with, and nobody is estopped by, what's in other articles. It's a poor rationale to include. I was also saying your example was inapposite, because, aside from WP:OTHERCRAP, WP:WEIGHT speaks to relevance to notability. If a ballet dancer had publications, even on ballet, but none of which were reviewed or covered, would they be relevant to the article's prose? There might be some inherent relevance, but it's very, very low. It certainly doesn't justify a list; which ones to include or leave out is easily answerable through third party coverage of the book, authorship, etc. JFHJr (㊟) 22:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

OK so its clear we don't agree. Let's see what others think. I respect consensus. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

DigitalJournal.com

Is DigitalJournal.com reliable enough to base encyclopedic content on living persons? I'm under the impression that it does have some professional contributors, but that it's essentially a blog, perhaps a sort of journalistic youtube. Currently, an op-ed piece from that source supports some content; I think a {{cn}} tag would be more appropriate. Any thoughts on this source? JFHJr (㊟) 16:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to leave the content as it appears to be true and is not controversial but you are correct in saying that this source is weak. It has editorial staff but most of its content is user generated. [20] So your suggestion to remove and replace with-- cite needed-- sounds good to me. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I was going to leave the information at first. But with the tag, the short sentence essentially read "In 2012, he obtained enough funding to start production on a documentary." It's WP:CRYSTAL and it's just not significant. I removed the whole thing. Feel free to replace it, if you seriously think his meeting a proposed budget on a yet-non-existent documentary is a biographically significant accomplishment. It looks more like an announcement for a contemplated project. I'd sooner wait for actual coverage of the documentary. If and when that occurs, it'd be a great inclusion here. JFHJr (㊟) 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the crowdfunding is not significant, but his production of a film is and I would have preferred if you left the content there as you indicated you would but I'm not going to revert you edit as its not that important and after all WP is about collaboration and compromise :-) We can include the movie info when its released and has press coverage.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine choice. Wikipedia shouldn't be about promotion of a video.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sidenote

I estimate the combined view count of the various trailers of the Sirius Documentary is nearly 2 million. Still, I can't find a single mainstream source reporting on it. If this video turns out to be a success, its mainstream coverage will surely cause plenty of Wikipedia debate. It would be nice if this article is in high Wikipedia quality, without controversial statements and lousy references, once this thing premieres.

New news reports

I want to ask other Wikipedians to look at the following news articles to find any valuable information for this article:

• Filmmaker gets serious about aliens published in The West Australian
• New documentary proves aliens exist. We’re dead Sirius published in Metro International
• Tiny Alien Humanoid Claimed To Exist In Steven Greer’s Upcoming Documentary ‘Sirius’ published in International Business Times

And also judge if the following news sources are reliable and contain valuable information for this article:

• 'Sirius,' Steven Greer's Film, Claims To Unveil Tiny 'Alien' Humanoid published in The Huffington Post
• UFO film to provide proof that aliens exist published in Zee News
• UFO Film May Provide Proof of Tiny Extraterrestrial Aliens: Six Inch Body Dissected published in 'Science World Report'
• Aliens Exist, According To This Upcoming Documetary published in 'Nature World News'

And also judge if the following press release would be appropriate to include in one way or another.

• Sirius Film Feat. Dr. Steven Greer By Emmy Winning Amardeep Kaleka Opens April 22FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

September 2013 edits

Note that the first edits of this month should have been rolled back. They removed source info and added blp violations. While much of the additions have been removed, no one bothered to look at the history and see that sourced information had been removed as well. Big mess. Maybe revert then fold in the improvements? --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

November 4 2013 edits

Similar to the BLP/NPOV/FRINGE problems of September [21], though bolder in the elimination of sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

SETI

I would be gratified if somewhere we can point out that CSETI is NOT the SETI Institute. Kortoso (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but I'm not sure how to make that distinction in a way that doesn't either promote CSETI by implying it's on a similar academic playing field, or alternately disparage CSETI by implying that it's a knock-off org. Personal opinions aside, we should strive for neutrality. I will re-add the SETI link to the see also section with an explanation of the difference. Grayfell (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

UFO religion

In light of [[22]], would it be Original Research to link UFO religion in See also? 76.10.128.192 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Movie Unacknowledged (2017)?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6400614/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1040:2011:28E9:3901:D55A:7276 (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? If you want to add a section about the Unacknowledged movie feel free to do it, I don't mind. Northwolf56 (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Updated sources

Because of recent edits I tried to look for post-2001 reliable sources but have trouble to find them (apart from mentions in sci-fi material and books from Greer). This makes me wonder: it's possible that only a few isolated events were reported about in the mainstream media, with his activities low profile since? Hackerculture1986 suggested a more recent source ([23]) but the Daily Express is not considered a reliable source (and has an entry at WP:RSP). —PaleoNeonate – 02:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I find movie reviews and press releases with mentions like [24] and [25] —PaleoNeonate – 02:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I found these sources, but I don't know if they can be used: https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36132 https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/451519-extra-terrestrial-intelligence-ufo/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/03/chile-mummy-ata-alien-dna/ https://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/chicagotribune.com/ (A tiny skeleton found in Chile might look like an alien, but her ... https://www.chicagotribune.com › news › environment) https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tiny-chile-alien-backgrou_n_3071767?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmRlLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAARdrpkoZ1vcrfcRioxQxA_d0qH5XqROZf0lr4AxiFPAo-UJl6egAZeLMt_gsgsygEC57CfvWRxcxE1SSZfwLOgd2rb2kjnjTecuoxnknkrOokUGLIMln93Zvn1v-pKEyFujpNxvV8Ap3vBfUGippZyK3PG7hp5chUnkNO_x74Nq https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwepqk/qanon-and-ufo-conspiracies-are-merging https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in-the-news/804-dr-steven-greer-describes-nde-later-has-first-et-contact.html https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2806853/ https://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/greer-steven/6081 Northwolf56 (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (into this article)

See the discussion at Talk:Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The Center doesn't seem to have been active for well over a decade. It won't make Greer's article too long, and it is a recreation of an article after an AfD agreed to a merger with Greer. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support - It would just be minimal fleshing out of a section of Greer's article as well as the center being seemingly defunct. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - a defunct org with citations to passing mentions. Consensus at AfD said Redirect to Steven M. Greer and merge any appropriate content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• Support - (CSETI in the Greer BLP, I think): per previous consensus, but also simply because there is not enough current material to have much to write about CSETI (anything notable would be fine in the main BLP article and easier to maintain). —PaleoNeonate – 04:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support not enough material for two articles. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done November 2019. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOXing, WP:DISRUPTION and disregard for WP:NPA

Wiki is meant to serve the world with facts, not facts and opinions of them. Make sure the facts are being reported without assuming that they are assumptions, &/or making the facts seem questionable, &/or edits that serve the editors own agenda/own beliefs or lack thereof to make information seem not credible with careful selection of wording. Also make sure that things/people are not being labeled as something they are not. Wiki is meant to serve the world with facts, not facts and opinions of them. It’s a disservice to the world to by not providing plain facts and instead manipulating the facts. If this is not the case, then wiki serves no true use. - Make edits so that everything is true and accurate, without ones own opinions/beliefs. & without not changing any of the information. & not discrediting or trying to make facts seem not credible. just report. & again actually, not really changing any of the info/facts at all. Just edit for simple facts - remove critic wording. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. To critic the facts. Stop labeling people especially if that’s not what they say they are/identify as/actual certified profession. What we do know is what has been reported by Steven Greer and his team and team of more than 900 military officials, and the most credible. & who most his team actually consist of. Who’s a more reliable source - the news and online news/internet articles that are from random people/news/news reporters? or the people involved in the facts themselves/situations the military officials? Steven Greer doesn’t identify as a “ufologist”. He has said so himself. What we do know and can say is that HE IS a retired doctor, he is a spokesman for military officials, & he is a researcher. & there’s so much more info that can be gathered about his life. Isn’t that how info on all these famous celebs are reported here? Through what THEY say. Not what reporters say. We know famous people’s bios mostly because of what info THEY provided about themselves to the public & what we have physically seen of them. That’s how wikis are able to be written about them. & if someone identifies as a female but they’re born male, you’re not going to come on here and says he’s female. You’re going to identify him here as female. But when it’s Steven Greer and people that are directly involved with military officials and operations/giving briefings to presidents, you’re going to call him a “ufoligist” & say every bit of info is “alleged” & “claims”? Then go say that about the more famous people - that they “allege” they’re from so and so. & that they “claim” they have a brother & that they “claim” they went to this school & that they “allege” that they have met with other well known people when there’s clear proof and evidence of the meetings. editors like this are either are not doing the research, frankly being ignorant, or purposely manipulating facts for their own agenda/beliefs. Please have some common sense and ignore ignorance and manipulation of someone’s life details to appear as discredited just because you don’t believe in it/are a supporter or not. Leave biases and discrediting out of ANYBODY'S life facts & info. So stop saying he & his team and the military officials “alleges”. The definition of allege is to assert without proof/claim or assert that someone has done something wrong typically without proof that this is the case. 1. THE MILITARY/GOVERNMENT/SCIENTIST OFFICIALS (not just Steven Greer) have shown, confirmed, & are actually the ones WHO PROVIDED the proof & facts. 2. Steven Greer, his team, or the officials that have made the statements have done nothing wrong. & that is clear. Let’s discuss. I know what I’m doing. I don’t need to be a tech geek/tech professor to know how to operate here. The guidelines are clear and with my last edits I made sure (EVEN MORE than in my first edits) to make sure all the same info is still there. Resources & all. It’s actually keeping a neutral point of view, not a biased/negative/critic point of view that you and most editors here are providing. Again, leave your own limiting beliefs out of this and just report the facts, without attempting to discredit them. Your job is to just report the facts. If you can’t report the facts NEUTRALLY, and just that, then follow this critic editors own advice. ⬇️ “If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics “ BTW, EVERYTHING is contentious. The world and life is contentious. OneTF (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC) @OneTF: If I'm following the logic above, the article should be changed to say he's a researcher, but he denies involvement in research about UFOs? Since that's what ufologist defines out as per its article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say about a given subject. In this case [26], the majority of WP:RS unambiguously say he's a ufologist, so that's what we go with. Also see WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Just edit for simple facts - remove critic wording. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. To critic the facts.. Sorry, you seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view is not possible without including criticism from reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC) You can talk on and on and argue the facts, turn a simple truth into a complication, but the facts are what I said. Nothing more. I’m reading these guidelines and wiki is plainly just a site that wants to credit main stem news only. It says, “we say “neutral, but it’s not really neutral” - “If it’s not in the news, it’s not credible.” Etc etc. Wikipedia is a shame. It’s better for it to not exist. “Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. “ - Wikipedia So are you guys guilty of that? FRINGE. Be honest. It’s okay. It’s okay to be wrong. ACCEPTING what’s mediocre for enlightenment of TRUTH greater things and freedom is okay. For liberation from limitations and judgment, letting go of having fear of the labels someone might have of you, is good. You can do it. So, what one particular point are you guys promoting on Steven greers wiki? That he’s not credible and everything about him is alleged and claimed, not facts. Like I said, if that’s the case, then go do the same for all your favorite well known people. Go dismiss their lives, their knowledge and experiences, and make them seem not credible in their life. You can’t do that to someone just because you don’t like them, just because you’re close minded and want your brain and evolution to stay a certain limited way forever. It’s okay child, the dark goes away with a light switch. It’s not going to kill you. Don’t be afraid of the dark. Liberate yourself. You’re okay. You’ll live. & in this case, society won’t kill you. Pave the way for the majority to liberate themselves from cages of limitation of ways of thinking, and knowing. BTW, You can’t edit out anything I’m editing due to wiki policy. I’m cooperating with it totally. You guys aren’t as you guys are promoting one idea/point instead of the other. You must keep all reported FACTS, neutral. Keep your opinion and bias out of it. Neutral point of view - IT IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE without criticism from ANYBODY credible or not. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF NEUTRAL Point of view! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ Wow! So contradicting you and Wikipedia guidelines are! How can a source be called reliable if they’re showing skepticism and criticism to an idea to favor another?! 🤦‍♂️ Neutral point of view my .. It’s a shame our population relies on Wikipedia for true information when it’s ran in such double standard way. Even if Wikipedia had some real integrity, people like you could just come along and change any definition/anything you want to fit your own agenda of disinformation and skepticism. OneTF (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Greer, conspiracy theories, etc.

Good source material for Greer's beliefs: [27]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, academic Aaron John Gulyas devotes a whole sub-chapter to Greer's conspiracy beliefs: [28] - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

External links fixed

disclosureproject.org is gone.

siriusdisclosure.com site can be flaky for the long PDF downloads. So I linked to an archived version too of "Executive Summary of the Disclosure Project Briefing Document". At the Internet Archive.

Found a newer biography page.

Updated links:

• Dr Steven Greer. Sirius Disclosure home.
• Steven Greer biography. Scroll down a bit.
• Executive Summary of the Disclosure Project Briefing Document. Copyright April 2001 – The Disclosure Project. And archive when website is problematic.

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

New scammy app.

It should be mentioned he has a new app out, he has changed close encounters to include two new categories, including a FIFTH kind - but you have to pay $9 to sign up to become a 'CE5 operative' (even though he claims in 1998 CE5 operatives were hunting UFO's and seeking UFO contact) - the app is basically just a web portal to some HTML junk and some crude low quality videos of 'examples' including nonsense like rods and orbs (known optical artifacts) that he portrays as UFO's that $9 'CE5 operatives' can use to judge their experiences against. Under the guise of a distributed research project he's basically scamming kids and naive people into giving him $9 a pop. An absurd price for what is literally freely available information on a billion websites out there. This is the kind of snake oil / charlatanism that has marked his career becoming filthy rich by exploiting peoples naievity. It's kinda sick that he's doing that. But his 'app' and it's scammy 'fee' and invented new 'CE5' category are notable in the least for it's charlatanism. 124.190.192.47 (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)