Talk:Billy Meier

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 - ✓
• 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” ) - ✓
• 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) - ✓
  • 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! (OK, so they're not as bad as Pat Robertson) - ✓

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)

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)

Figu does not:

impose excessive control over people

Demand or encourage worship of anyone or anything.

Figu Does encourage clear thinking and the importance of knowing that beliefs, faiths in anything (even FIGU itself) outside of yourself, correspond to obstacles in the way of seeing reality. You might believe the sources are "experts" but your description of Meier and the Figu are not neutral, it's accusatory and slanderous which comes from being influenced by religion.

Wikipedias "description" (promo material) for Alex Collier is obviously from the same "experts" Whose ability to see and think clearly has, like yours, been damaged by religion. ~2025-42132-42 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Its not a religion he is not anti-Semitic. Wikipedia claims that Meier refers to Jewish people as "gypsies" giving the reader the impression that he is anti-Semitic. Search "Jew" on Meier's wiki site 50+ results and 95% of them the conversation is on "jew haters" "jew hatred" search "gypsies" 2 results on "hebrews" from "hebreons" from "gypsies" (15,000 years ago they were known as Gypsies!). Religion involves worship of deities, idols or sacred objects and or ritualistic practices which is the opposite of what Meier teaches. ~2025-42132-42 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Quoted: "In interviews with author Gary Kinder, Meier admitted to using models to recreate scenes after his wife showed photos of incomplete models he thought he had destroyed by burning." I found the book (it's easy, anyone can download it after one quick googling), analysed, and this claim is not true, it is not admitted in the book. Másoknak vannak kétségei Meier hitelességével kapcsolatban, valaki állítja, hogy Meier felesége negatívokat adott át neki, amelyek modellekkel való kísérletezést mutatnak, de semmiképpen sem történik semmilyen beismerés a könyvben Meier részéről, ez az állítás tehát gyakorlatilag történelemhamisítást képez.

As a verification, I encourage you to download the book and do the analysis by yourself. Vendrel (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)