Talk:Billy Meier

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Meier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Paranormal Mid‑importance

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not a religion, September 2023

(copied from User Talk) On Wikipedia, we go by third party independent published sources. The higher quality the better. You could say we like academics and university presses the best. In this case, we have footnoted sources that unambiguously characterize Billy Meiers FIGU organization as a UFO religion, such as: "UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture" by Gregory L. Reece..."Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements" by George D. Chryssides..."The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions" by James R. Lewis, and even a couple more not used in the article, like Robert Pearson Flaherty. WP:BLP does not mean that critical commentary cited to high quality sources cannot be included in articles. I hope you'll self-revert your removal of the term and start a discussion on the Talk page. Regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I teach anthropology of religion at an American university, so I'm no stranger to peer reviewed sources. Encyclopedias and dictionaries are not usually peer reviewed, but rather tertiary sources, which are discouraged on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's policy on using encyclopedias and dictionaries as sources is very detailed, so each one must be evaluated independently: Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. If we discount these, then you have only one source claiming it is a religion, which doesn't seem to me to be "unambigous." The definition of "religion" is notoriously tricky and controversial, and calling it such comes down to how one defines religion. Since I am aware there is no consensus on this point, I am really not comfortable with the blanket claim that the already controversial figure of Billy Meier is a religious cult leader. This seems to add more drama unnecessarily. Perhaps there is a happy medium where we could say that some people have argued that it is a UFO Religion, or even that one author did so. If you don't like the solution I suggest, then perhaps it would be productive to begin a discussion on the article talk page. Best, Coryannyyz (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, *several* expert sources have given a critical analysis and have termed it a UFO religion, so saying one author 'argued' it would be disingenuous. We also avoid WP:GEVAL ("some people say this, some people say that"). WP:NPOV is not about aiming for a middle ground between fringe vs. mainstream views. I don't see any mainstream academic sources are arguing that it is NOT a UFO religion, so there isn't any academic 'controversy'. Editorial WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia operates, and policy-based arguments are the format, so the article Talk page is the best place to continue this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for publishing this discussion on the article talk page. Although I don't agree with your reading of Wikipedia policy or the literature (Reece doesn't actually say that Meier is a religion - see p.154), I don't care enough about this topic to argue over the definition of religion. I'm surprised that my alternative more neutral term of "organization," which can hardly be disputed, would raise such dander! I have reverted my edit. Enjoy! Coryannyyz (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, discussion and consensus is a good thing. There's been lots of informed discussion on this page in the past, maybe this will encourage more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coryanyyz said

"The definition of "religion" is notoriously tricky and controversial, and calling it such comes down to how one defines religion.

" I agree with that. While there's never been a great objective definition what actually is a religion, these things are in the usual definition in whole or in part of what constitutes a religion:

Unfalsifiable beliefs that must be taken on faith [1] - ✓
A creation myth that defies known history and science [2] - ✓
Ritual practices [3] - ✓
Prayer! [4] - ✓
A life cycle of a pre-existence, afterlife, reincarnation, etc [5] - ✓
Spiritual teachings (extensive) [6] - ✓
Holy writings (“Genesis” [7] “Commandments” [8] ) - ✓
An undeniable leader with
- Supernatural powers (prophecy, telepathy, time travel) - ✓
- weird titles “One True Contactee and Prophet of the New Age” - ✓
- Messianic claims (he's coming back 800 years after he dies, check line 36) [9] - ✓
- 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?) [10] - ✓
- The only person with access to unique relics [11] - ✓
Organization structure for preservation of scripture [12] - ✓
After your wallet! (OK, so they're not as bad as Pat Robertson) [13] [14] - ✓

The supernatural parts are indisputably religious. This is from my research and it would be WP:OR to make my own claim that FIGU is a religion or cult. But, given that other references do make the claim, I don't have to. These references are useful to yourself or any other passers-by who might wonder what backs up the referenced claims. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable aspect of so called organised religion in America is that upon creating a "new religion", you establish yourself as a nonprofit or not-for-profit organisation that may declare exempt tax status. However, I haven't seen any nonprofits that do not solicit, do not ask to be exempt from taxation and that are completely run by volunteers. Not even one. And you can check right here for yourself. https://www.guidestar.org/search Lightbringer1375077 (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

THE CASE IS NOT A RELIGION !

The Billy Eduard Albert Meier case is not a religion, but the only true contact with extraterrestrials. Wikipedia is spreading false information. 2804:6BC:4008:A4A1:8D92:EEC0:A3AA:BB17 (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TRUTH. JimRenge (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those who edited this are not neutral.

The page contains errors and shows bias toward one side rather than maintaining a neutral stance. It fails to include sources that support the other perspective. The writing resembles a news narrative that omits key facts and leans heavily toward one side. Dani-Peace-Creation (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dani-Peace-Creation: Hi, resembles a news narrative is actually a good thing on Wikipedia. That's the goal, because typically reliable sources do not omit "key facts" or write content based on their own opinions. If you have concerns about due weight and have other reliable sources that are not included in this article, feel free to provide them. Academic references are generally a tier above newspapers, for example. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with this article but on neutrality it is decent. My issue is it underweights the religion aspect, there are numerous sources about his religion but we barely cover it all when it is one of the main sources of his notability. It also isn't that comprehensive. I have downgraded it to C. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main Article

"Meier's prophecies repeatedly blame Jews (whom he refers to as "gypsies") for future atrocities.[8]"

Source 8 doesn't load, could not identify source, should be removed unless source populates. 2600:8805:B1B:8000:6B3D:3D88:D3D2:5BD3 (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book, we are free to use non-digital sources. Appears to be a perfectly decent source [15] PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAYWALL: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." The source is available in libraries and bookstores. JimRenge (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contact movie isn't neutral.

I haven't rephrased the sentence about Contact, but it should be part of the mention that the movie is not made by neutral parties. It's all true believers making a documentary about what they believe in. Anybody want to make an attempt to neutralize it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable source has reviewed and commented on the 1987 film, the most we can summarize are the film's principals, release date etc. But this new one is a different case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]