Talk:Billy Meier

POV

This article is ten times too long for a man whose only claim to fame is supposedly talking to aliens. It shoulds take no more than three small paragraphs at most to cover him. If no one can provide a a valid rationale I am going to pare this down.71.108.139.195 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove. Encyclopedic relevance (which seems to be what you are talking about, not POV) isn't about what you or I think or how likely a claim is. It's about phenomena that occur. The rest is about how you describe them, not if.

So, if a phenomenon is widespread enough, it merits inclusion and at some length. And if you (or most sensible people you can think of) can't see any truth in it – for one thing you (and they) may still miss something; for another, the subject may still hold considerable ethnographical, historical, psychological or similar interest. Just as an article about Augustinus or Muhammed holds even to many of us who are not Christian or Moslem, respectively.

As for the UFO subject, it's both significant and controversial, as can be seen in other articles on it, and this man seems to be a figure of some importance in it. 79.102.42.199 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Los metales

Nadie toma en cuenta, que el Sr. Meier, sometio a estudios cientificos, algunos metales, desconocidos en la tierra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.23.170 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talmud Jmmanuel?

There apparently was an article about Talmud Jmmanuel, but it was deleted. It redirects to the Billy Meier article, which I don't appreciate at all as a researcher. And it is only mentioned in passing in this article, with one apparently-questionable citation. (I wish deleted articles would still be easily found – are they? – if one wanted to look at them.) Googling, I can't quickly find out information about this purported document. Questions like: Have scholars studied it? Is it ancient? If it is, should not an article about it be included, regardless of Billy Meier's supposed connection to it? Without an article, how can researchers easily determine its status as either a fake or a real document from antiquity? or a fake from antiquity? It seems like many Wikipedia editors are in the habit of deleting things that they find too incredible to believe. If an article has issues, fix it, but deleting it, if it's something notable – and such a find would be – is worse damage than having some articles around that aren't up to editor snuff. Maybe the snuff is the problem, LOL. Anyone know if I can still read a deleted article on Wikipedia, or if needed, elsewhere? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't have the time nor inclination to listen to the Exposing Pseudoscience podcasts provided in the external links section, but if these are able to be accepted as good and valid sources they should be used as inline citations within the main body of the article where appropriate. Laval (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but there is no reason for this article to be using any primary or self-published sources considering that it seems there are more than enough secondary and tertiary sources, both pro and con, that can be used. Referencing the "contact reports" and other works of Meier is totally unnecessary. Laval (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC) -I have removed the entire section.

One sided

This article is skewed toward an obvious hoaxer. There is plenty of evidence online that a large section of his photos were rip offs from other sources. http://www.billymeierufocase.com/dinosaurphotodeconstruction.html, http://www.billymeierufocase.com/asketdeconstruction.html. Also every photo has been reproduced http://www.billymeierufo.com/ All of this should be mentioned if the article is gong to be this long.