Talk:Billy Meier

Rewrite using independent sources

IMO, the article body badly needs a rewrite using independent sources to better comply with WP:FRINGE. For example, UFOlogist and Meier proponent Wendelle Stevens shouldn't be the source for anything, especially long breathless sections of fringe views regarding metal samples and sound recordings. The same goes for Meier fans Gary Kinder and Marcel Vogel (whose own article could do with some cleanup). Rather than a tabloid POV that focuses on presenting pro and con views regarding Meier's fantastic claims, photos and other "evidence", we would do well to adopt the more objective view reflected in high quality academic sources that take into account the religious and social aspects of Meier's beliefs and those of his followers.

• James R. Lewis (2002). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Prometheus Books, Publishers. pp. 653–. ISBN 978-1-61592-738-8.
• Paul Kurtz. Skepticism and Humanism: The New Paradigm. Transaction Publishers. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-1-4128-3411-7.
• Joe Nickell (29 September 2010). Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 165–. ISBN 0-8131-3828-0.
• Kal K. Korff. Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story. Prometheus Books, Publishers. pp. 195–. ISBN 978-1-61592-441-7.
• Catherine L. Albanese (1 December 2006). A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion. Yale University Press. pp. 502–. ISBN 0-300-13477-0.

Using higher quality sources also helps avoid the circular argumentation of SELFPUB proponent opinion followed by SELFPUB debunker opinion followed by SELFPUB proponent rebuttal, etc. Above are a few of the sources I've found so far that can support such needed rework. Feel free to add others that may be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I advocate simply pruning out any content based on such sources. That will shorten the article, which is good, as Meier is virtually unknown to the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

X Files Poster 'I want to Believe'

The original X Files Poster with a picture in Agent Mulder's Office of a U.F.O. was said to be one of Billies old U.F.O. pictures. The Show ran the original Poster as a Prop for 10 years but were then told Fox had been issued a Lawsuit regarding copyright of the picture. The X Files Show then altered the picture to avoid litigation. Johnwrd (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that makes this claim? I know that was the conclusion of FIGU, but they wouldn't meet WP:RS. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ufo

I live in Glasgow Scotland and would just like too share to the world that I seen something beautiful in the sky and believe me it has left me speechless xxx Padge19 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

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.