Talk:Serge Monast

Help wanted
I wrote this up for another wiki, translating from fr:Serge Monast, and decided an NPOV version would be useful on en:wp. He seems to have a lot of fans amongst Francophone conspiracy buffs and was notable enough for Pierre-André Taguieff to write about him twice, so ...

Things it needs:
 * 1) Someone whose French is much better than mine to go through the French version, which I translated here as best I could.
 * 2) I'm pretty sure I badly messed up the publications list, attempting to translate French citation style into something sensible in English. If someone who knows both can check it over, that would help greatly.
 * 3) I didn't translate the section in fr:wp on conspiracy theories about his heart attack because I couldn't decipher it with sufficient confidence and the references looked terrible at a glance. (I linked one here as an example, and that I'm not sure about.)
 * 4) Needs more on his work in the 1970s and 1980s, when he was reasonably respected - not just the conspiracy stuff - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

- David Gerard (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" vs "Conspiracy buff"
There is a difference between these terms - the first indicates belief in the theory, the second merely suggests interest, e.g. Fortean Times readers who don't necessarily buy into the things detailed therein. The second includes the first. It's clear Jacques Delacroix is a conspiracy buff, but it's not clear that he actually believes the stuff. The interest in Monast from Francophones is amongst the buffs, not just the believers. What's a better term than "conspiracy buff" if that won't do? "Conspiracy community" sounds like a contrived neologism - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, rereading fr:Serge Monast, Jacques Delacroix does seem to believe this stuff. Theorist it is for him, then - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've named "theorists" and "enthusiasts" separately in the intro - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Delacroix quote translation
How original-researchy are rough translations? I think this one's meaning is pretty clear - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Crackpot watched tv, wrote fiction
That's pretty much what happened, lol.
 * In May 1975, Gene Roddenberry accepted an offer from Paramount to develop Star Trek into a feature film, and moved back into his old office on the Paramount lot. His proposed story told of a flying saucer, hovering above Earth, that was programmed to send down people who looked like prophets, including Jesus Christ.

Joel Engel's Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek was released in 1994, shortly before Monast's lecture on Project Blue Beam. All the steps of the conspiracy theory were in the unmade mid-'70s Star Trek film script by Roddenberry, which were recycled for the ST:TNG episode Devil's Due, broadcast in 1991 R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you got that from here, perchance ... after I found it. It's amazing what legs Project Blue Beam seems to have in the conspiracysphere, though - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Project Blue Beam" redirects here - why?
"Project Blue Beam" redirects here. There is no mention of "project blue beam" in this article - why does it redirect to this? 38.113.0.254 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * - There's a vandal who keeps coming back every now and then to change all mention of "Blue Beam" to "BB" - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * - That makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Why would you delete an ENTIRE page of information and redirect to another page that DOES NOT contain the information of the original page just because a vandal changed the name of the page? That doesn't sound plausible at all! — 149.254.219.224 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, why was the original page deleted? Why doesn't the original writings of Project Blue Beam exist? There should be a page completly dedicated to just to Project Blue Beam as alot of links relate to all ot of what is actually happening in to day world. It is apparent that alot can be found in French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intruder1670 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I have tried on multiple occasions to edit the 'project Bluebeam' page by including the actual information about 'Project Bluebeam' and undoing the pointless redirect to the Serge Monast page. The user 'David Gerard' has undone my revisions every time. In fact, going back in the history of the 'project Bluebeam' page he has been doing this for quite a few years. He cited "multiple cut n paste copyright violations" as his excuse. I have since contacted the author of the source I used and if I can't get him to grant permission to use his work then I will do my own original write up in a 'Wikipedia format' in order to get round this excuse - although I feel the user David Gerard is more concerned with keeping the specific 'project Bluebeam' information out of public circulation - rather than being concerned about any 'copyright violations'. We will see if he tries to delete the 'Project Bluebeam' information again after I have re-written in an original format. If he does, then his intentions and motivations are not 'copyright protection' but to keep the information out of public circulation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.224 (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It is claimed by David Gerard that the Project Bluebeam page has been deleted because it violates the 'WP:RS' and is subject to a Wikipedia article of deletion. However, I contend that the 'WP:RS' has not been violated here.

On the 'WP:RS' page, it states -


 * "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * • the piece of work itself (the article, book);
 * • the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
 * • and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)."

Since the author of the work is being quoted (Monast himself) then the source material is relevant. So 'WP:RS' is not being breached in this circumstance.

Finally I contend the Wikipedia article of deletion regarding 'Project Bluebeam' because on that page it WRONGLY states -


 * • "Delete as not notable. There is no significant coverage of this conspiracy theory in reliable sources. Note that the coverage doesn't need to support the truth of the theory (it can be skeptical), but the theory is not well enough known to justify this article. - Pburka (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)"

This is complete trash! There are MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES to verify this information from, and the theory IS well known. Other websites have published source material (including books) to back up the assertions of Monast. Anyway, there are PLENTY of other unrelated articles on Wikipedia that rely on dubious sources but they somehow manage to be acceptable to Wikipedia so what is so special about Project Bluebeam???

Wikipedia has already received multiple complaints over this issue and the fact that you have is proof positive the Wikipedia article of deletion is wrong as the theory IS WELL KNOWN! In fact, other forums criticize Wikipedia regularly for deleting it! At the end of the day this is a public website, if I want to write an article about a project that actually exists, then I will and I will provide MULTIPLE SOURCE MATERIAL to back it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.2 (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope you do. It would be quite an interesting read (following all Wikipedia policies/guidelines that is). -- &oelig; &trade; 12:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

“In the 1900s and 1910s, Monast was a journalist, poet and essayist.“
But he was born in 1945? 2600:8801:1187:7F00:7DE0:F5D6:A81D:81DD (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)