Talk:Billy Meier/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reliable source for name of an association

Hello LuckyLouie, If a person enters a legal agreement for registering an association with a government and reflects that fact on his/her web site (figu.org), readable in its German version and English version http://au.figu.org/figu_nutshell.html that seems to be a pretty official reference. That person would risk a court case, if deviating from the official records. Or do you expect to somewhere upload and share with the world the legal document (which is feasible)? Bye, Stefan Zutt (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

To add: where is your reference for the wrong name of the association? Zutt (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

What you have provided is a link to FIGU, so it's not a legal agreement or a government filing or registration, it's a WP:SELFPUB source which makes WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that they are not a cult, sect, or religion - which are at odds with what our third party RS say (see below). Government registration filings are WP:PRIMARY sources, and considering anyone can call themselves anything in a government registration, it wouldn't be worth much as a source. Wikipedia needs some indication that whatever it is the topic is claiming about itself has been noticed and commented on by third party reviewers that are WP:FRIND sources, such as:

• The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions.
• Encyclopedia of American Religions by J. Gordon Melton
• Handbook of UFO Religions

- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello LuckyLouie. Then let us go one by one and not mixing things up. One matter is referring to an association by its correct name. The second matter is that three persons were at some point of time of the opinion that a predecessor of this organisation should be called a religion. These two things should certainly not get mixed up. I would therefore plea to split this current sentence up into two.

Here is one neutral, objective, third party reference that shows that the current Wikipedia article's naming of the association is wrong. It is the Swiss directory of all current associations of the country: https://vereinsverzeichnis.ch/vereine-kanton/item/freie-interessengemeinschaft-universell-free-community-of-interests-universal

So that should be the first sentence. The second sentence should state that according to Mr. James R. Lewis, Mr. J. Gordon Melton and Mr. Benjamin E. Zeller, it is claimed that this association would be of a religious nature. That, while this very association describes religions as one of the key reasons for humankind's unpeaceful way of living together on this planet. Zutt (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

One correction. The third person making that claim is not Mr. Zeller but Mr. Lukas Pokorny, himself a catholic religionist. Zutt (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources. Wikipedia goes by what high quality academic sources say, and in this case, we have at least three who specifically describe Meier's organization as a UFO religion that we can cite. There's no need to attribute each academic, as if they were a minority opinion in order to give equal validity to the claims of Meier and his organization. I'm sorry but it doesn't matter if Meier keeps modifying the name and the purpose of FIGU in commercial directories where anyone can fill out a form. Wikipedia can wait until high quality third party independent sources notice and comment on it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There's really no problem with stating that FIGU is a registered non-profit corporation, but that's an additional fact, not a replacement fact. You're trying to use this to change the early intro from stating Meier is a cult leader. That's not going to change because it's the primary thing he's known for. That FIGU is legal and all is secondary and usually assumed, but if you insist. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 10:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Is that the standard Wikipedia goes by “Meier is a cult leader … because it’s the primary thing he’s known for”. My understanding is that Wikipedia wants to help readers overcoming the state of prejudices, slander, sheer beliefs towards facts and thus reality. Calling an organization which harshly attacks each and every religion a religion is about as fringe a claim as it can possibly be. According to the standards of Wikipedia it will thus take truly independent sources to back up such a weird proposition. Persons like Mr. Lukas Pokorny, who is a religionist and makes his living by salary from a religious university is a lot, but certainly not independent and thus qualified in that regard. Zutt (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's an interesting claim that a personality cult that teaches supernatural claims like reïncarnation, immortal souls, telepathy, past lives, teleportation, time travel et al goes to such great lengths to say "we're not a religion!". Actually, I think that clearly being what they claim they aren't is very common with cults. In any case

• Unfalsifiable beliefs that must be taken on faith - ✓
• A creation myth that defies known history and science - ✓
• Ritual practices - ✓
• Prayer! - ✓
• A life cycle of a pre-existence, afterlife, reincarnation, etc - ✓
• Spiritual teachings (extensive) - ✓
• Holy writings (“Genesis” “Commandments” ) - ✓
• Supernatural power (prophecy, telepathy, time travel) - ✓
• An undeniable leader with
  • weird titles “One True Contactee and Prophet of the New Age” - ✓
  • Messianic claims (he's coming back 800 years after he dies) - ✓
  • Claims to be reincarnation of JMannuel (who is claimed to be Jesus Christ by humans, but Meier claims there is no Jesus Christ, just Jmannuel, confused yet?) - ✓
  • The only person with access to unique relics - ✓
• Organization structure for preservation of scripture - ✓
• After your wallet! ✓

It's pretty clear that it's a cult.

If you wish to propose changes to the text cited to Mr. Lukas Pokorny, you are welcome to do so here on the talk page for discussion. Has he ever said anything about Billy or FIGU beyond acknowledging their existence? What changes to the text are you proposing? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zutt: you seem to have a beef with Lukas Pokorny, so I looked him up [1]. If by "religionist" you mean he studies religion and religious movements, that is correct. Far from being disqualified as a source, Wikipedia prefers citations to academic experts such as Pokorny. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, he is part of the Faculty of Catholic Theology, which probably means that the Vatican sent him there. Austria still has the de:Österreichisches Konkordat von 1933 Engelbert Dollfuß made with Pius XI, just as Germany still has the Reichskonkordat which Hitler made with the same pope, giving the pope the power to decide professorships in exchange for the Vatican turning a blind eye to the crimes of the Nazis. So, "religionist" seems correct. But WP:BIASED says reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective, so, the source is fine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Also there is at least one source attesting to his being in incarcerated as a youth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Category: Swiss Criminals

I'll work on sourcing, but by his own biographies Meier went to prison in 1951 for assault, in 1953 for thievery, escaped to France, joined the FFL, went AWOL (a crime) in Algeria, returned to Switzerland and served the remainder of time from the second charge, as well as for escaping. That's three stints in prison and going AWOL. The he claims to have engaged in grave robbery in the Middle East, and hitchhiked to India, where he was arrested and expelled. That's six instances of criminality, all from his own bio. I'd rather avoid using SPS, but this stuff is easy enough to source with a bit of time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You have categorized him as Swiss Criminal and Meier had actually admitted that as a teenager at age of 14, he ended up arrested in respective setting for youth (for a deed he had according to his own claim not committed, but OK many perpetrators say so). We are talking about an event of the 1950ies. According to Swiss law you ARE a criminal if you have an existing entry in the “Register of Criminal Convictions”. And as article 369 explains, entries for even the worst crimes get deleted after 20 years. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/54/757_781_799/en So be so kind to comply and stop insulting the man. The mentioning of alleged “crimes” in foreign countries is so far backed by nothing. This while there is correspondence of law enforcement institutions of other countries thanking him for his assistance when finding and arresting serious criminals. Zutt (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

So? We don't care if the Swiss delete facts. Wikipedia preserves them.

The whataboutism that Billy (according to his own mythmaking) hunted down serial killers in Egypt is.... citation needed SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it is easy to see that you don’t care, while misleading the audience by declaring that Wikipedia content would be bothered by law and legality. Am just hoping for you that Mr. Meier will not challenge your defamatory content: https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy/Subpoena_FAQ Luckily for you he might have better things to do. Zutt (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the Swiss criminal cat. Regardless of what the state of the article may be in the future, right now there is no support in the article for the category. It would be a WP:BLP violation to re-add it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • done. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  The book now referred in the article is no credible source at all. It contains innumerable falsehoods. Professor James W. Deardorff summarized it like that “In just those seven pages I have noticed 9 false or unsupported claims, 12 misleading statements, 13 plain errors, and 3 innuendos with false implications”. For details: http://www.tjresearch.info/refutekk.htm 121.142.226.3 (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  When people are called "professor" without mentioning their field, that is always suspicious. So, I checked: Deardorff was a meteorologist and therefore, in this context, for all intents and purposes a layman. Calling him "professor" without adding his field is a lie by omission. Deardorff was also a pretty gullible adherent of Meier, it seems.

  The very first "falsehood" in that link starts with On p. 36 Korff says. So, it is a "falsehood" that the "Talmud Immanuel" is a hoax perpetrated by Meier? That is begging the question - assuming that what one believes is true as a first step in proving that it is true. After that, it does not make much sense to continue reading that crap. Of course, it is not a reliable source in the first place, being a WP:SPS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  So right, Deardorff is a professor who underwent a STEM education and then the respective professional work, which qualifies him as researcher. His reputation is spotless. To the best of my knowledge there is no education making you something like a professional ufologist, a profession that does not exist. That brings me to Korff and his qualification for writing an investigative book. He has neither an education as investigator nor researcher, and my understanding is that he has no professional education on anything. That alone is a red flag as big as it can get.

  It might be worth to add another detail regarding the reputation of the person and the making of that specific book. You might be aware that all illustrations in the book originate from a talented man of the name Garret Moore. He has a few further insights to share about Karl Korff which should disqualify him as a trustworthy source for anything. I found a copy of his testimony over here: https://www.theyfly.com/Korff.html. The artist and witness can be contacted via his own web site: https://garret.myportfolio.com/contact 121.142.226.3 (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

  Deardorff is talking about historical subjects. I underwent a STEM education, and it did not qualify me to do that. But my point was not that he is not qualified (theoretically, he could have taught himself and have become an educated layman) but that that calling him "professor" without a field is a red flag.

  Korff's book was published by a reputable publisher specialized in the analysis of pseudoscience and other bullshit. So, their reputation and specialty is right on the mark. Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources do not demand any academic grades. That is because the criteria were written by people who are more competent in such matters than you.

  Your source, on the other hand, is just some random guy's website and therefore not usable as a source for Wikipedia pages. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:RS. If you want other criteria, you are free to start your own wiki. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a number of things I wouldn't use Korff's book for as a reliable source, but biographical data about Meier, from direct interviews with Meier, is reliable. That Meier trusted him then, but hates him now, is neither here nor there to his reliability on bio data. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the category is appropriate. The most salient PAGs are WP:COPDEF and WP:BLPCAT. Not all verifiable traits are WP:DEFINING characteristics: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic. It is one thing to find sources that verify elements of crimes. It is another thing to include crimes in an encyclopedia article (per WP:PROPORTION, WP:VNOTSUFF andWP:NOTEVERYTHING), and yet still another to categorize the subject as a criminal if the crimes are not a substantial part of the subject's notability. WP:BLPCRIMINAL explicitly uses this as an example: For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; (emphasis added). Per WP:COPDEF: Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality; the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for... Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized. If the only sources that mention youth crimes are assorted newspaper articles from before the subject had achieved notability, and a few sentences in the book-length biographies/investigations by Koff and Gary Kinder, then the criminality is simply verifiable, not defining. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The truth

Michael Horn made a movie called “And Did They Listen” revealing many facts about Billy Meier also predictions that he made. 2001:56A:7249:A200:BD47:E904:1A90:FABE (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

So what? Are there any reliable sources about that? Horn seems to be some random guy from the UFO subculture, so he does not qualify. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael Horn earns his living as Meier's spokesman in USA and other English speaking places. He'd be unemployed and homeless without Billy's largesse. He is not a qualified source on anything as he is known to lie to protect his income. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)