Talk:Peter Beter

Beter released a series of audio newsletter tapes between 1975 and 1982.^[1] Through his tapes, Beter influenced various people such as those behind Cosmic Awareness (Beter is mentioned in numerous Revelations of Awareness newsletters, most predominantly in issue 79-20^[2] and 19 other references throughout the newsletters over the years^[3]; his audio letters are also linked to from the CAC website^[4]) and the 1980s punk band, the Wanderers.^[5]

Beter also influenced Robert Dean ("Bob Dobbs").^[6]

How are these not reliable sources? -Eep² 18:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One is a primary source posted on what I guess is a fan site. Primary sources are discouraged as you can read about here. One of the sources is a mirror site of Wikipedia (answers.com). One of the sources is Cosmicawareness.org which does not meet the criteria for WP:RS. As for this link , it might be acceptable.--Dcooper 18:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources (though, not really since it's a fansite) are acceptable in establishing a common fact. Simply look at the first and last released audio newsletter (transcribed into text on the site) and see for yourself. That link is ONLY used to establish the 1975-1982 date of Beter's audio newsletters. Answers.com is NOT a mirror site of Wikipedia; it also includes other information not on Wikipedia. Plus, it is only used as further reinforcement of what is on allmusic.com. Why don't you research the sources before immediately preaching WP:RS? It gets tiring... -Eep² 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If his audio tapes are important, you can find a better source. I'm not convinced that allmusic.com is appropriate. Answers.com is not at all appropriate.--Dcooper 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Go nuts--and what's wrong with allmusic.com and answers.com? Who are you to decide what's appropriate? -Eep² 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you carefully read our verifiability policy. Addhoc 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Cosmic Awareness and Bob Dobbs references? The Cosmic Awareness primary source is only used to show that Beter is mentioned in the newsletter and on the website--see for yourself--and the Bob Dobbs source mentions Beter:

Bob Dobbs is an expert on communications theory and was a colleague of Marshall McLuhan at the Center for Culture and Technology in Toronto, Ontario. For several years during the mid-'80s he was the personal advisor to investigative journalist Bob Marshall, who hosted a radio show on CKLN-FM called the International Connection. The show regularly featured the information of groundbreaking conspiracy theorists such as Mae Brussell, Sherman Skolnick, Dr. Peter Beter, and Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Adam Vaughan, the manager of the station, fired Marshall early in 1987 for broadcasting Dr. Beter's "antiSemitic rants" against the Rothschilds. The fact that Beter railed against the Rockefellers just as much as the Rothschilds apparently went right over Vaughan's head. Dobbs later replaced Marshall on the air, and has since followed a rather interesting career trajectory. According to him, he's taken over the Earth. -Eep² 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic Awareness is still not a reliable source, and it is not notable if he is mentioned there. The Bob Dobbs sentence stated that Beter was a major influence on Dobbs. I don't see that anywhere in the passage you cited. That passage is also from Paranoia Magazine. Is that a reliable source?--Dcooper 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic Awareness is a reliable source because, according to WP:RS:

Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors.

Cosmic Awareness is an authority in its subject because it is the ONLY authority in its subject; there is no other organization that claims to channel Cosmic Awareness and, if there are, they are even less credible than the Revelations of Awareness (RoA) newsletter (which has far more notability than any other organization that may claim to channel Cosmic Awareness. Reliability is contextual and, in this context, the original/primary source is the context. Now, of course, you can then compare the channelled information to what actually happened to see how credible Cosmic Awareness is, but its credibility isn't at stake here. What IS it stake is whether or not RoA was influenced by Beter, which is obvious when reading the specific issues mentioned previously. The reference is to simple establish this fact, which anyone can plainly read. I will comment on the Dobbs reference later, as I have to leave.

-Eep² 21:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

More on original sources (from Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources):

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

The fact that Relevations of Awareness had multiple articles on Peter Beter is easily verifiable with the given sources. As is the fact that Bob Dobbs (Robert Dean) was influenced by Peter Beter is also easily verifiable through the secondary source and the original source (his website, which has copies of what appeared in Flipside--which I sourced on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_30). -Eep² 03:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Bob Dobbs reference, there is a question about this "Bob Dobbs" (who I've seen referenced as "Bob Dean", "Robert Dean", and even "Bob Marshall") being the figurehead of the Church of the SubGenius, let alone having met Beter. See a recent deletion review of "Bob Dobbs" I proposed. Dobbs/Dean/Marshall also claims many other meetings with famous people since his 1922 birthdate (which would make him 84 years old, despite him actually looking much younger). Granted, these are worth investigating on their own, but I feel the reference is questionable thus far, considering my recent research into Dobbs/Dean's credibility on the alt.slack newsgroup. I have yet to verify his connection to Beter other than his own diary (which you referenced). I believe there needs to be some other reference besides Dobbs/Dean's own diary. -Eep² 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed statements that are sourced directly to a site called peterbeter.host.sk which purports to contain transcripts of audio tapes recorded by Beter. This isn't a reliable source. If as the article said, he "was known for his highly controversial claims--according to his audio letters" then there should be ample secondary sources that report on the contents of those audio letters. I've also removed a statement sourced to the website of the Church of SubGenius, an organisation which would be the first to disavow all pretensions towards reliability on matters of fact. Also I've removed a claim about death threats that appears to be sourced to a book by some other crank author. --Tony Sidaway 08:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the following from a section called "Claims" which was formerly at the top of the page --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

pls stop removing his claims,there is nothing wrong with having them here as long as secondary cources are not omitted.please see this msg i got from an admin:

I don't know much about the article, I closed the AfD based on the discussion (where no consensus developed). Re sources, yes, in principle you can use audio sources, but it would be better if you can find an online transcript of the recordings and cite that. Also, bear in mind that the article shouldn't rely fully on primary sources from the subject themselves; on Wikipedia, independent secondary sources are preferred. See WP:RS and WP:ATT for more information on sourcing. Walton_monarchist89 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandia01 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 15 May 2007

He's quite right, but the transcript website is not a reliable source. We do need a good quality source, preferably a secondary source. It's better not to have details of the actual claims unless and until we can find reliable documentation of the audio tapes.

To clarify what I mean by "not a reliable source", I will point out that host.sk is a free webhost, and the files and recordings are simply that: unverified recordings that purport to be about, or pertain to, Peter Beter. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/ contains audio and text transcripts of the tapes, which may or may not be the same as those on http://peterbeter.host.sk/ (although both websites look identical). It would, of course, be better to have another secondary source for these transcriptions--like a published book or reissued audiobook (whatever). However, Grandia, you need to stop referring to Beter as "Dr Beter" (it's spelled "Dr."--with a period at the end, incidentally) unless you provide a credible reference as to his "Dr." title (Ph.D., medical doctor, etc). -Eep² 08:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, other sources: http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic/jonestwn.htm (audio letter #40), http://www.etext.org/Politics/Beter.Audio.Letter/ (with original 1993 modification timestamps), http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1999/jul/m28-005.shtml (a 1999 mailing list quoting a source, alex @ spiral.org, who used to OCR and post the Revelations of Awareness newsletters back in the early 1990s (which is how I first came across them in newsgroups--and are also archived at http://skepticfiles.org/skeptic/ and http://www.etext.org/Politics/Conspiracy/Cosmic.Awareness/). Also, http://www.transactual.com/cac/94-05.TXT specifically mentions Beter's audio tapes, alex @ spiral.org and Revelations of Awareness all in one sentence, so I believe these are all credible sources. While the Beter fansites are probably exact copies, I have not verified this... I am trying to get a link between Beter and Revelations of Awareness at least, so I am interested in establish credible, reliable sources too. -Eep² 08:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed a reference to his religion from the lead. If it's just some email somebody received, it certainly shouldn't be there. Moreover it's hard to see what relevance his religion might have. --Tony Sidaway 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion often has a great relevance on one's life and actions...the Crusades, anyone? Regardless, I agree the statement needs a better source than just "some email"--c'mon, Grandia; you know better than that... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 03:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree with ∞Σɛ_Þ², religion is a very important concept throughout history.i mentioned this exact comment on Tony Sidaway's talk page but he deleted it for being "dubious"(!!!) anyways sorry for being so naive by adding this from an email,i'll try to search for more secondary sources for more info about him,i guess www.newspaperarchive.com is a good place to start. thank for your comments and contribution to this page ∞Σɛ_Þ²;and try to be less paranoid Tony Sidaway.Grandia01 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Grandia01, we cannot state that Beter was assassinated (by whom?) without reliable sources.Proabivouac 05:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Proabivouac,i already corrected thatGrandia01 07:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, thanks.Proabivouac 08:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence says that Beter ran for Governor, but doesn't mention which state this was in. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ben kımım —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.104.118 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

sds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.104.118 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.torindiegalaxien.de/erde10/juden-semiten.html
• http://hatonnspeaksthetruth.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/on-“reptilian”-shape-shifting-and-the-hatonn-ra-connection/ --Getürkt (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This article states:

[begin quote] Beter was known for his highly controversial claims, some of which included allegations of conspiracy in the highest political positions; Beter claimed that:

Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the Kennedy assassination.[16] Several important public figures such as David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and Jimmy Carter are actually dead, and are being impersonated by organic "robotoids".[17][18][19] Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) after the Hearst newspaper chain published secret Congressional testimony. This testimony revealed that America's atomic secrets were handed over to the Soviet Union - not stolen by Soviet spies, before America's first atomic bomb was finished, and that the Rockefellers were directly involved in this plot.[20][21][22] The CIA was responsible for the secret death of General George Scratchley Brown because he simply knew "too much".[23] The Jonestown massacre was staged to camouflage a joint U.S.-Israeli military operation to destroy a Soviet missile base in Guyana. The Jonestown incident explained the movement of U.S. military personnel into Guyana and concealed the real count of casualties from the attack on the Soviet base.[24] Particle beam weapons and other advanced aerial weapons under secret development had the power to change the weather. Both the U.S. and the Soviet Union had developed such weapons.[25] [end quote] Controversial implies that something causes controversy, that is, debate. Beter's claims are obviously absurd and baseless. Even Peter Myers, an Australian right-wing author who believes in some conspiracy theories and publishes a website , once said to me when I sent him Beter's materials "I cannot use materials like Beter's without evidence, please don't waste my time with this stuff" and dismissed Beter as a crackpot. Calling Beter "controversial" implies some people respect him and his ideas, and I do not think that is the case. He was basically a demented idiot, just like Eustace Mullins, although we cannot say it in those exact words in the article, I think calling him "controversial" it to charitable. RandomScholar30 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)