Talk:John H. Meier

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 articles United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Canada: British Columbia / Vancouver Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject Vancouver (assessed as Low-importance).

I have been spending years doing research for a project I am working on and I kept seeing John Meier mentioned.

I have just recently begun editing Wikipedia pages and I noticed that every other person I had been researching already has an extensive page, but it seems Meier has never had a proper one about him. So I thought I would try to spend time editing this page as I feel I have read much more information about him than most people would know about.

I would also really like to talk to anyone in his family or anyone who knew him if they are interested in contacting me anytime.

I am mostly interested in Howard Hughes and the RFK Assassination but I will edit as much as I can for this.

I am not sure if this page has been Vandalized before, as it seems some previous editor had deleted years of previous edits from other editors, but I will first fix some of the current edits to make it more accurate, even though they seemed to have been correct on older edits of it. I can only spend so much time on this, so it might take me at least a few months. But I will try to keep working on it until I exhaust my knowledge around it. Machinations24 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing that Meier was the first person who had exposed the CIA using the Hughes Organization as a front for the CIA. I am not sure if it was something I read or a video I had seen. I think the CIA angle would be really interesting to go into more detail about but I wouldn't want to do it without a credible source for it. Does anyone have a reference I could use for it. Machinations24 (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, check the history, I didn’t write the article.

And I see you don’t seem to care about other writers’ opinions on here since you once again put your changes back. When I have time maybe I’ll have to go through all the work you have written and start making changes to all your sites to force my own opinions on you.

And just because you have been participating for several years on WP doesn’t mean you have been doing it right, which I can see from other complaints people have made about you on your personal discussion page.

The reason I feel qualified to edit this particular Wikipedia page on John H. Meier (as well as Age of Secrets), is that I have spent years studying political history, specifically events in the late 60’s and early 70’s. This has also lead to learning as much as possible about Nixon, Howard Hughes, and those that where involved with them, including Meier. I had read the Age of Secrets book, that was written about him from a distinguished reporter who had spent decades researching and reporting on Meier.

I have read many articles and books about him over the yeas, and in fact have some copies of articles that talk about him. When I saw this site, I quickly went and tracked down as many of the articles as I could find, and copies of some of the books I didn’t already have.

I was fine with your changes except for these ones:

1) you say there is tons of unsourced info. here and add a verify calling for addition citations, yet at the same time you remove the extensive newspaper source list and say its not needed because the article has references?

Those newspaper sources are needed because they are the sourced info. for the article! Which is how every WP page is. Otherwise every single sentence in the entire article would have to have a reference number attached to it.

WP pages need to be shown that they can be verified from reliable references. That is why all those newspaper articles need to be in there.

2) you deleted all the pictures. Again this is very important as it goes to establishing credibility of the source material.

3) you deleted him being mentioned as a former U.S. Senate Candidate (which he was, for New Mexico). This is very important as it ties in with his involved with the U.S. Government, etc.

4) you deleted most of info. about Gonzalez. It is important because the document wasn’t only about John Meier, but Meier and how corrupt the CIA can be. The reference to being used as a tool for the President was important as it tied into Watergate and John Meier, etc.

5) you changed it to say Meier claims to have paid a political price. Its not just Meier’s claims but books including ones written by veteran reporters, newspaper articles, and magazine articles.

6) you removed what was written about the Playboy article, which is an important source for this article. —Preceding

Correction: That article is still listed in the references. What I edited was the more sensationalistic language that was clearly intended to promote the agenda of the Age of Secrets book (which Meier is the subject of), and its central arguments. I've said this several times, that's not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Alcarillo (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcarillo (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

1) making the comment about the U.S. Senate is like saying there is no point in writing anything about Richard Nixon accept that he was the only President to resign.

2) The Gonzales affidavit weren’t assertions from the book, but was made public, as well as one of the sources that showed the political and personal price he paid. I might have some articles about it, I will look through what I have.

3) The problem is, you seem to be looking at this site and Age of Secrets as the same site, they are very different sites that contain only some of the same information. There are endless sites on Wikipedia with similar subject matters that do the same thing. It can’t be assumed that because someone goes to one site they will go to the other. As well as you keep thinking all of this is some big conspiracy to promote Age of Secrets. That book came out a long time ago, the publisher wouldn’t be spending time trying to promote sales of it.

4) When I have time I will look through the articles I have to see if I can add to those citations, but since I didn’t write this article I am not going to spend too much more time on this.

Please do, because there are major holes in this article, as you can see by the empty citation tags. Then there's the question of balance, which you seem to be completely dismissive of. For instance, where is there record that Meier was imprisoned and accused of murder? Or where is information regarding Meier's legal status? One bit of info I found says that he fled to Canada after being accused of fraud and embezzlement[1], which is certainly the other side of the coin to Meier's assertions that he was a victim of "CIA dirty tricks". Alcarillo (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I never even heard of John Meier before I stumbled upon this page and ones related to him. That it was originally written in such a obviously biased manner raised all sorts of flags with me; they usually indicate a distortion of the full story. I've seen it time and again on WP, and it begged the question, "what's NOT being said here?" So I embarked upon a basic investigation and it turns out there's a lot more to John Meier than what was initially written. For instance, there's the entire Hughes mining scandal that's given considerable attention in two books I included in the sources section. There's also the tax evasion issue -- several sources state that Meier is now living in Vancouver in tax exile. A search of info through the Dept. of Justice or IRS didn't reveal anything yet.

Other aspects just don't mesh, or are played to greater effect than they really warrant. Case in point, Meier's film production experience. I found nothing on IMDB, but a search of the AMPAS resulted in two films. But as the passage was initially written, you'd think Meier was another "Meyer", as in Louis B.

In sum, I believe the article about Meier is much improved in terms of balance, NPOV and verifiability, but like most things here, it's still a work in progress. Alcarillo (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found somewhere that Meier came in 15th in that nomination race. So I don't think his candidacy was all that notable (note that in just about every instance where his name is mentioned in WP, his Senate run is mentioned). I'll keep trying to find that info. Alcarillo (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I found it here (PDF) [2] Alcarillo (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: He came in tenth, which still is of questionable notability. Alcarillo (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate anyone wanting to make a Wikipedia page better, and conforming to WP policies, it should be people who are familiar with the subject matter who make the changes and, as per WP Policies, any controversial changes that someone wants to make must be debated in the discussion area before those changes can be qualified.

The creators of Wikipedia pages put a lot of time, energy, and research into creating pages in WP and they deserve consideration towards any major changes to their work. Especially when many others have looked at a WP page and made their own edits to it, that you are then not only changing the original page, but eliminating everyone else’s edits, which no one, previously to you, had a problem with.

Your suggested changes are noted but as they are controversial lets discuss which ones should or shouldn’t be made.

I am reverting your changes again until we can discuss this. Please wait until myself and/or anyone else has had a chance to speak and discuss this matter before making any changes.

I will go through your changes in details and post another message with my thoughts on which changes I think are fine and which I don’t agree with. —Preceding

Actually, that's not how things work around here. Again, I highly suggest you familiarize yourself with the writing -- and editing -- of articles to make them better. What you had before was a mess, plain and simple. It talked up Meier's background in a manner that was not consistent with

WP:NPOV; moreover, it was overly detailed on matters that are beyond a wikipedia biography page, particularly someone like John Meier who isn't exactly a household name. Alcarillo (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is written from o pov that all of Meier's fabulist assertions as fact. Read some neutral biographies of Hughes and you'll see the real Meier. 2600:1001:B10D:C3FD:24F6:DE50:59F3:C3FA (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]