Tag: Reply |
SchmuckyTheCat (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
:Per the clear consensus at BLPN, I have removed cult leader as occupation from the info box. I'd note that we cannot use OR to say he's a cult leader in any case so random editor's opinions that his work implies he's a cult leader are irrelevant as they always are. I'd also note we do not punish people so we don't keep BLP violations just because a subject or their followers have been disruptive on an article in the past. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
:Per the clear consensus at BLPN, I have removed cult leader as occupation from the info box. I'd note that we cannot use OR to say he's a cult leader in any case so random editor's opinions that his work implies he's a cult leader are irrelevant as they always are. I'd also note we do not punish people so we don't keep BLP violations just because a subject or their followers have been disruptive on an article in the past. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 04:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |
||
===What just happened here?=== |
|||
Just so we're clear |
|||
*SPA accounts complain or vandalize this page on the daily if it isn't semi-pp |
|||
*SPA complains to someone with no knowledge of the subject, complaint: occupation=cult leader |
|||
*Unknowledged person doesn't seek out more knowledge on the subject, but moves the conversation to a noticeboard instead of the talk page. |
|||
*Noticeboard piles on to SPOV based on gut reaction to the words instead of references (and abundance of numerous off-wiki sources) |
|||
*'''Clearly sourced and referenced''' material (occupation = cult leader) is removed as non-SPOV. |
|||
*What was clearly sourced and referenced is then referred to as original research, |
|||
*New editors begin engaging in original research, without references, to find a SPOV occupation title. |
|||
Good job! Clearly that's in-line with NPOV, OR, CITE. BLP is not a requirement for SPOV, so throw that in the mix too. |
|||
So, here's a suggestion after looking through a few other biographies of other UFO cult leaders: remove the occupation from the infobox. Don't use OR to come up with a term y'all can agree with. Use the "known for" infobox field to say "Founder of FIGU (German abbreviation of 'Free Community of Interests for the Border and Spiritual Sciences and Ufological Studies')". Then we can reëxamine the term "cult leader" after more/better sourcing is added. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]]) 08:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Content in lead not mentioned elsewhere == |
== Content in lead not mentioned elsewhere == |
Revision as of 08:13, 15 December 2022
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
- - 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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
- @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)
- 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
- Also there is at least one source attesting to his being in incarcerated as a youth. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 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)
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022
Occupation teacher author - . Other Claims Made are slander and invalidated. 2604:2D80:6A00:B00:24F4:3C6C:6B31:9596 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: The requested content is unsourced, and
Other Claims Made are slander and invalidated
is not persuasive. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Someone upset about this article on my talk page
Anyone want to give me advice for this? I think maybe I could have reacted better in my last response but I'm not really sure what else I could really say. Apart from a recent edit I made to the remove cult leader as the occupation parameter, I'm not really familiar with this person/article/ufology as a concept. So... any advice? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- He's a cult leader. That's what sources say because it's fundamentally true. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SchmuckyTheCat I don't really agree with the majority of what the person on my talk page is saying. But I do think that "cult leader" just doesn't make sense in the occupation parameter in an infobox. The rest of the article doesn't even really mention anything like that other than he's a founder of a religion, but that's not quite the same thing as cult leader. You also mention sources. Is there more than one that chacterizes him this way? My personal gut instinct is that something like this should have more context in the article and be attributed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Various SPAs with connections to Meiers org have been trying to get the cult description deleted for some time. I had listed some sources to support his cult leadership here, and likely more could be found. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- Here's an additional "cult" description from Joe Nickell [2], from a review of a book by Kal Korff which also describes Meier as a cult leader in more detail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- A review should be treated the same as any opinion piece. It may be used for attributed opinions but not for statements of fact in wiki voice. And who's Kal Korff? What evidence is there he's a subject matter expert? Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- NB I should have said they however I had a quick look and sources including publishers that seem to be linked to use Korff use 'he' [3] [4] so I won't change my comment above. Anyway I should add that Prometheus Books doesn't sound like the sort of publisher where we can assume all their works are RS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- A review should be treated the same as any opinion piece. It may be used for attributed opinions but not for statements of fact in wiki voice. And who's Kal Korff? What evidence is there he's a subject matter expert? Nil Einne (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- There was a lot more in this article about a decade ago. Someone came along and deleted huge chunks of the article as "cruft", but it left no doubt that FIGU was a cult and had a lot more citations. In any case, read what I replied to below in reply to Jojo - his day in and day out activitie involve leadership - management, administration, fundraising - for a widely recognized cult. That's his occupation SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @SchmuckyTheCat I don't really agree with the majority of what the person on my talk page is saying. But I do think that "cult leader" just doesn't make sense in the occupation parameter in an infobox. The rest of the article doesn't even really mention anything like that other than he's a founder of a religion, but that's not quite the same thing as cult leader. You also mention sources. Is there more than one that chacterizes him this way? My personal gut instinct is that something like this should have more context in the article and be attributed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: How about if cult leader was instead attached to a "Known for" parameter in the infobox? Based on LuckyLouie's earlier post there are several reliable sources supporting that. And since we are discussing the subject's occupation(s), the term ufologist would be a valid descriptor. Meier is, after all, deservedly included on the List of ufologists page, and other ufologists (Stanton Friedman, Jacques Vallée, et alia) have ufologist included as an occupation. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because as a daily job he's a cult leader. He has a big farm where all the cultists live. He communicates with other cultists globally. He manages who gets paid from the cult's funds. He delivers messages to cultists about what's what. He's the leader, of a cult, and that takes up the majority of his time. While these guys are dead (hint, hint about the future) Wikipedia doesn't hold back from calling David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite cult leaders. The same as Billy here, there day to day job was leading a cult. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea to add some sourced text to the article regarding Meier's cult. I agree with Schmucky's common sense, but we'd need sources to support that rationale. I like JoJo's proposal, since "ufologist" is the occupation that is most widely-supported. BTW, this is also being discussed at the BLP noticeboard but maybe it's better to keep discussion centralized here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I will add "ufologist" to the occupation parameter of the infobox, per my comment above. I am not certain why two discussions were seen to be required for this page-specific issue, but this Talk page seems sufficient and appropriate for further attempts to reach consensus. In that spirit, I will attempt to search for additional RS that explicitly refer to Meier as a cult leader. If I can't find anything, so be it. Not being the best interwebs searcher, however, I invite others to join in the task. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax and SchmuckyTheCat: (and everyone else), take pains to ensure that in trying to locate sources that might use "cult leader", "ufologist", or whatever, we are not cherry-picking and unduly trumpeting those. If 1000 reliable sources use labels other than cult leader, we should not lend undue emphasis to the few that do, even if we think that's what he should be most known for. Targeted searches for any phrase invite bias, as they may overlook other phrases. It's best to search for the person, as unbiasedly as possible, and see which occupations and labels naturally seem to be most commonly used to introduce/describe the subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- This is something I meant to bring up but never got around to. Thank you for stating it so concisely, Animalparty. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- The combination of the pedantic post above and the threat of blocks at WP:BLPN, both directed at experienced editors in good standing, make it easy for me to immediately abandon this discussion. Good luck folks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Editors mistakenly cherry picking sources when trying to find something to support something in an article is a very common problem, Any experienced editor should have seen it happen even from experienced editors. There is absolutely nothing wrong or "pedantic" about an editor reminding people not to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- @JoJo Anthrax and SchmuckyTheCat: (and everyone else), take pains to ensure that in trying to locate sources that might use "cult leader", "ufologist", or whatever, we are not cherry-picking and unduly trumpeting those. If 1000 reliable sources use labels other than cult leader, we should not lend undue emphasis to the few that do, even if we think that's what he should be most known for. Targeted searches for any phrase invite bias, as they may overlook other phrases. It's best to search for the person, as unbiasedly as possible, and see which occupations and labels naturally seem to be most commonly used to introduce/describe the subject. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- I will add "ufologist" to the occupation parameter of the infobox, per my comment above. I am not certain why two discussions were seen to be required for this page-specific issue, but this Talk page seems sufficient and appropriate for further attempts to reach consensus. In that spirit, I will attempt to search for additional RS that explicitly refer to Meier as a cult leader. If I can't find anything, so be it. Not being the best interwebs searcher, however, I invite others to join in the task. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Could you explain how an article Marshall Applewhite which only uses the term 'cult leader' in a category and with a single use in a source title is not holding back? Even the term cult is only used once in the text referring to someone who studies cults. Then there is a see also referrring to Jim Jones. There are a bunch of sources etc where cult appear somewhere which generally the title which we repeat in our information on those sources. Applewhite is long dead but for a BLP, it's unlikely the category is acceptable given that there's no discussion of the issue in the article text. David Koresh at least seems to be an actual example of what you're referring to since it uses the term in wikivoice in the lead and in the info box lists his occupation as the leader of the Branch Davidian cult although the sourcing is possibly better. Nil Einne (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea to add some sourced text to the article regarding Meier's cult. I agree with Schmucky's common sense, but we'd need sources to support that rationale. I like JoJo's proposal, since "ufologist" is the occupation that is most widely-supported. BTW, this is also being discussed at the BLP noticeboard but maybe it's better to keep discussion centralized here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Because as a daily job he's a cult leader. He has a big farm where all the cultists live. He communicates with other cultists globally. He manages who gets paid from the cult's funds. He delivers messages to cultists about what's what. He's the leader, of a cult, and that takes up the majority of his time. While these guys are dead (hint, hint about the future) Wikipedia doesn't hold back from calling David Koresh or Marshall Applewhite cult leaders. The same as Billy here, there day to day job was leading a cult. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- He's not a Ufologist. He doesn't study UFOs. He channels aliens directly, rides around in outer space in their ships, and time travels with the aliens, and then reports back to his cult with future prophecies and religious instruction. Ufologists study people like him. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to me the best description for this guy's occupation is "Religious leader". Gets almost exactly the same info across, but is much less pejorative and a lot more wiki-style. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have any issues with using religious leader. More neutral and not undue weight on a perjorative term. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Per the clear consensus at BLPN, I have removed cult leader as occupation from the info box. I'd note that we cannot use OR to say he's a cult leader in any case so random editor's opinions that his work implies he's a cult leader are irrelevant as they always are. I'd also note we do not punish people so we don't keep BLP violations just because a subject or their followers have been disruptive on an article in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
What just happened here?
Just so we're clear
- SPA accounts complain or vandalize this page on the daily if it isn't semi-pp
- SPA complains to someone with no knowledge of the subject, complaint: occupation=cult leader
- Unknowledged person doesn't seek out more knowledge on the subject, but moves the conversation to a noticeboard instead of the talk page.
- Noticeboard piles on to SPOV based on gut reaction to the words instead of references (and abundance of numerous off-wiki sources)
- Clearly sourced and referenced material (occupation = cult leader) is removed as non-SPOV.
- What was clearly sourced and referenced is then referred to as original research,
- New editors begin engaging in original research, without references, to find a SPOV occupation title.
Good job! Clearly that's in-line with NPOV, OR, CITE. BLP is not a requirement for SPOV, so throw that in the mix too.
So, here's a suggestion after looking through a few other biographies of other UFO cult leaders: remove the occupation from the infobox. Don't use OR to come up with a term y'all can agree with. Use the "known for" infobox field to say "Founder of FIGU (German abbreviation of 'Free Community of Interests for the Border and Spiritual Sciences and Ufological Studies')". Then we can reëxamine the term "cult leader" after more/better sourcing is added. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Content in lead not mentioned elsewhere
The lead currently includes the statement: "Meier's prophecies repeatedly blame Jews (whom he refers to as "gypsies") for future atrocities", sourced to a chapter in a book in German. It appears SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) added the sentence in 2020, copying from the German Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat, can you (or anyone else) verify that the source accurately supports the assertion?. And assuming it does, does the assertion belong in the lead per WP:PROPORTION? (antisemitism is not mentioned anywhere else, which is one of the reasons I removed Category:Antisemitism in Switzerland). This is a potential BLP issue, and no content should be in the lead that is not elsewhere in the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a BLP issue, Meier is quoting aliens, not himself (sarcasm off)...
- It's in German because he speaks and writes in German. Many of the best sources about him are in German. It's a reliable source in the German Wikipedia, and it quotes his own primary sources to make the point. If, in English, you want to go to primary sources, the issue is quite glaring. He (or, errrr, the aliens he channels) also dislikes male homosexuals, but that's not in the secondar source so it's not in the article.
- If you want to move it somewhere else in the article, feel free. The current length of the article does not really have content separation between the lede and the body. Whenever it has had length to it, someone will come along and remove chunks en masse as "cruft". Then we're left to digging out the important parts from the cruft to replace them in the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not doubting the existence of the book, nor it's reliability, nor that the German Wikipedia uses it. I'm asking if you personally read the source and concurred that the sentence you added accurately, fairly and proportionally conveys what Meier's prophecies say. I know almost nothing about Meier, but it reads like something tacked on merely to pile on criticism in a prominent place. If his prophecies repeatedly blame Jews, and it's a significant aspect of his career, there should be ample documentation of this. Per MOS:LEAD, if most users only read the lead, and the lead is overstuffed with factoids, then Wikipedia is misleading them. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)