Talk:Trial of Clay Shaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Trial of Clay Shaw has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] NPOV Issues

I just wrote this article based on my known resources. There may be a bias in the article, although, I have tried my best to remain neutral. Please add any verfiable information that will add balance where I am not neutral. Ramsquire 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Over the next few days, I will try to add cites to all the information in this article. Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Also, any photos will likewise be appreciated. Ramsquire 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the formatting is a little different than standard Wikipedia articles--just a suggestion, if you have the time to do it. Wikipediarules2221 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I used the O.J. Simpson murder case as a template to begin this article, but I do plan, once I get all the citation in order, to see how other trial articles have been handled to bring it in line with how similar articles have been done. Ramsquire 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisions

Overall the article is pretty good. Even Garrison proponents like myself will admit the case really fell apart.

Yes the case fell apart. However, there is a lot of evidence that the case was being sabotaged by the CIA and the FBI with help from CIA and FBI assets in the mainstream media.Mtracy9 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1.[Jack Martin] "may have hypnotized Oswald and planted a post-hypnotic suggestion that he kill the President." Martin, born Edward Stewart Suggs, was a diagnosed sociopath and admitted alcoholic with a rap sheet and a history of furnishing false information to the authorities…” A very strong condemnation of Martin. Footnote 14 cites McAdams website. The website cites Warren Commission CD 75. McAdams website is not a reliable source. Does the CD actually say, “sociopath… with a rap sheet and a history of furnishing false information to the authorities.”? Or is this just McAdams opinion?

No it's not. Again actually read the article and it's citation. It's FN 13, and it is sourced to a reliable secondary source, as appropriate under WP:RS. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


2. Either under “Evidence” or “Key Persons and Witnesses” James Hardiman the postman who delivered letters to Clay Bertrand to Shaw, should be mentioned.

Why, because you wish it to be so? Again WP:V, and WP:RS applies. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (CWC the “dick”)

3. The Clinton LA witnesses also had horns and tails. Please stop with bashing of the Clinton witnesses. It would be objective to either quote or summarize HSCA’s conclusion that the witnesses were “credible and significant.” If the devil needs an advocate, “some researchers have doubted their testimony.” would suffice.

Again read the article, that's what is said, and the names of prominent researchers are added. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


4. There is no mention of “Lee Odum PO Box 19106 Dallas Texas” being in Shaw and Oswald’s notebook. While Warren Commission apologists have dismissed this as simple meeting between Shaw and Dallas citizen Lee Odum in 1966, it does not explain how it was in Oswald’s note book years before the PO box even existed.

Again, WP:V and WP:RS. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


5.Just like all the assassination articles on Wikipedia far too many footnotes refer to McAdams’ website. In this article it is gratuitous since most of the facts can be found in the trial transcripts themselves. (CWC)

From WP:OR-- Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable published secondary sources. This means that we present verifiable accounts of views and arguments of reliable scholars, and not interpretations of primary source material by Wikipedians. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

CWC, if you want to actually make changes to articles and have them stick, instead of having the articles locked and your IPs blocked, you're going to have to work toward consensus and compromise on the article talk pages. I don't care one way or the other, to be honest, and I don't care what these articles say as long as they meet WP:NPOV and WP:V. I'm not interested in these topics. But I won't let you edit war to get your way. You need to stop doing battle here, and start working toward consensus. I recommend that when your current blocks wear off, you register an account, and start using our dispute resolution channels. Or, you can fight and fight and fight, and I will just lock every article you touch. Your choice. ··coelacan 22:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phelan

I removed the follwing sentence from the article because of BLP concerns: (Note: Journalist James Phelan's objectivity has been questioned. Documents, released under the JFK Act of 1992, reveal that Phelan was informing to the FBI and giving them records of his interviews with Garrison in early 1967.)[1] My reasoning is that I believe Phelan is alive, and that he would dispute these so called records. So I'm asking other editors (I'll be researching as well) to find a better source than DiEugenio for the proposition that Phelan was an FBI informant, or Phelan's reaction to the charge. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From Jim DiEugenio's article in "Probe" magazine on James Phelan:

"So far, two full documents and a partial one have been released revealing that Phelan was informing to the FBI and turning over documents to them as a result of his interviews with Garrison in early 1967. The most interesting contact sheet is the one uncovered by Anna Marie Kuhns-Walko and included in CTKA's [Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination] collection of her work. In this April 3, 1967 memo by R. E. Wick to [FBI liaison] Cartha DeLoach, Wick writes that he agreed to see Phelan reluctantly: 'Although we have stayed away from [Phelan's name crossed out] it was felt we should hear what he had to say and Leinbaugh in my office talked to him.'" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.54.5 (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Probe qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policies. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 23:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Probe magazine is a reliable source, unlike the John McAdams JFK disinformation site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtracy9 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Attacking one source doesn't establish the reliability of another. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this then: I wonder if John McAdams JFK disinformation site qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtracy9 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to stay on topic. And please sign your posts, which you can do by adding four tildes (~) to the end of your post. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 00:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, your the one who seems to have gotten off topic. What reason do you have for thinking that Probe magazine is not a reliable source. Have you read any of the Probe magazine articles? Many of them are available for free on the "Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination" website: http://www.ctka.net/fullarticles.htmlMtracy9 (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
How is this off topic? It seems to be exactly what the topic is, since Ramsquire removed the material and started this section because he had concerns about the source you used. It doesn't matter what I think about the Probe articles, what matters is if they qualify as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, especially since they concern a living individual. Have a look at the Wikipedia policies linked to in the previous sentence and let us know if you have any questions. Thank you for signing your post. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
After doing a little web research on this topic, my position is that unless I see something from the AP, NY Times, or any source on that level, I think the sentence violates WP:BLP, and should not be placed in the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the article should eliminate material from the John McAdams website, which is hardly presenting AP and NY Times material.Mtracy9 (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP before making a general attack against the McAdams website. If you see situations where McAdams is being used in reference to a living person, and there are no third party sources available, bring it to my attention. It should not be used in that matter. Otherwise please note: Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Probe Interview

I've deleted the section from the article regarding the CIA harassing and intimidating Garrison witnesses, and that there were CIA assets on Garrison's staff. The major reason is that these kind of extraordinary claims, require extraordinary sourcing under Verifiability and FRINGE THEORIES. Simply put there needs to be extensive sourcing for these kinds of claims. An interview from Probe magazine is simply not sufficient, there needs to be corroboration. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire says that the notion that a government agency is committing crimes is an "extraordinary claim" and falls into the Wikipedia category of FRINGE THEORIES. However, the examples given under FRINGE THEORIES mostly concern making a distinction between science and pseudoscience. Moreover, the CIA has been caught committing crimes in the past. Therefore, it cannot be considered an extraordinary claim that two HSCA members, with access to CIA files, have accused the CIA of having committed crimes in the Garrison investigation. Below are three documented cases of past CIA crimes:

1) CIA Director Richard Helms was convicted in 1977 of lying to Congress over Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) undercover activities.

2) On the Senate floor in 1977, Senator Ted Kennedy said: "The Deputy Director of the CIA revealed that over thirty universities and institutions were involved in an 'extensive testing and experimentation' program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens 'at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.' Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to 'unwitting subjects in social situations.' At least one death, that of Dr. [Frank] Olson, resulted from these activities. The Agency itself acknowledged that these tests made little scientific sense. The agents doing the monitoring were not qualified scientific observers."

3) CIA Counterintelligence Director James Angleton was in charge of Operation CHAOS, a disruption of domestic protest groups that included mail openings. By law, the CIA is restricted to foreign investigations, so CHAOS was an illegal operation.

Ramsquire futher states that "Probe" magazine's interview of Robert Tanenbaum, former Deputy Counsel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, is not a sufficient source and that "there needs to be corroboration." Ramsquire chooses to ignore the fact that corroboration is given by sourcing HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's book, "The Last Investigation."Mtracy9 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RPJ appears to have learned nothing from his yearlong ban. I would hate to have to go through another arbitration proceeding over this kind of nonsense.
  1. WP:FRINGE covers how to respond to non-significant theories. The idea that the CIA had agents on Garrison staff, or intimidated and harassed Garrison witnesses (a very narrow and specific accusation) is a claim first put out by Garrison himself, and has never been corroborated by any mainstream source. This viewpoint is thus insignificant. It has nothing to do with science our pseudoscience.
  2. Helm's conviction is a red herring to the actual issue. Helms pleaded no-contest to lying to Congress about Chilean activities totally unrelated to this article subject.
  3. The other two items listed are also red herrings and unrelated to the claims made here.
RPJ, I suggest you use the above examples as a template as how to add information to the article. The examples you use as red herring are actually well sourced to mainstream sources and if related to the subject of the article (i.e. THE TRIAL OF CLAY SHAW), could go in. However, to use the disputed claims of one person supported by one person who believes him, without any mainstream corroboration goes against the guidelines I list above. By the way, the CIA plan of action to counteract Garrison is part of the public record, and can be easily put into the article without going to unsupported accusations. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ramsquire orignially said that the notion that a government agency is committing crimes is an "extraordinary claim." When presented with evidence that the CIA has a documented history of committing crimes, Ramsquire does a lot of "bobbing and weaving" talking about red herrings. Once again, Ramsquire chooses to ignore the fact that the two people making claims about CIA interference, Robert Tanenbaum and Gaeton Fonzi, were investigators for the HSCA and had access to CIA documents. Yet, apparently, these two investigators don't meet Ramsquire's criteria for "mainstream."Mtracy9 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, whoever this RPJ character you keep referring to is, it's not me. So you can take me off of your paranoid list.Mtracy9 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to be mistaken for RPJ, then don't talk about people in the third person when you should be addressing them directly and don't accuse them of things like "bobbing and weaving". How he reacts to you is going to depend on how you treat him, and vice versa. No reason we can't all be civil here, so let's start now. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I am not willing to play this charade. I find it too hard to believe that roughly around the same time RPJ's ban is scheduled to end, a new user miracously arises in the same articles that RPJ used to hunt, pushing the same conspiracy angles that RPJ used to push, and referring to editors the same way RPJ used to refer to editors. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, its a duck, or in this case RPJ. Now I was willing to give him a second chance and have actually allowed a lot of the information presented into the article because some of it does a good job of fleshing out the articles and is well sourced. But, RPJ knows full well that the claim in the article, a narrow and specific claim (that Garrison investigation was torpedoed by the CIA) is an extraordinary claim under WP:FRINGE, and that better sourcing is needed than Probe. I'll go to RfC over this if need be, but I am not going to pretend like RPJ has not returned, when I see all his fingerprints. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice posturing, but you still haven't answered the points that I presented.Mtracy9 (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My answer is below. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Inclusion of Probe Interview allegations

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] NO

The final paragraph contains an accusation that the CIA actively torpedoed Garrison's investigation. This is a claim first hatched by Garrison to explain the shoddyness of his case. There is no mainstream reliable source to support the accusation. The editor is using an interview in Probe magazine (which is likely an unreliable source per this), and has no corroboration of what these documents are, or whether they actually existed. Secondly, this accusation "that the CIA destroyed Garrison case" is an extraordinary claim in that it accuses a government agency of committing a crime. Under WP:FRINGE extensive sourcing is required to make such a claim on Wikipedia. The use of other crimes committed by the agency is irrelevant to the question of whether this accusation of criminal behavior should be included. In sum, is this claim verfiable? The answer is no. The Fonzi book repeating the allegation is insufficient corroboration for this claim. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Garrison was notorious for self-aggrandizing at the expense of the facts, so his claims should not be presented uncritically or cooberated only by fringe conspiracy publications. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YES

The first advocate of the NO position states that Probe magazine "is likely an unreliable source." However, he provides no evidence that this is the case. He also ignores the fact that the two people claiming CIA interference, Robert Tanenbaum and Gaeton Fonzi, were investigators for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations and had access to CIA documents. Moreover, one of these House investigators, Gaeton Fonzi makes this claim not in Probe magazine, but in his own book, The Last Investigation. Fonzi thus validates the claim of CIA interference made by House investigator Robert Tanenbaum in the Probe magazine interview. The following is the relevant part of the interview:

Probe: You've said that you've actually seen a CIA document that says they were monitoring and harassing Jim Garrison's witnesses.
Robert Tanenbaum: Right. We had that information. I was shocked to read that because I remember discounting everything Garrison had said. I had a negative point of view about Garrison based upon all the reportage that had gone on. And then I read all this material that had come out of [former CIA Director Richard] Helm's office, that in fact what Garrison had said was true. They were harassing his witnesses, they were intimidating his witnesses.

Moreover, there is no consensus of opinion on Jim Garrison and his investigation into JFK's murder. Indeed, the article on Jim Garrison in Wikipedia itself states: "Opinions differ as to whether he [Garrison] uncovered a conspiracy behind the John F. Kennedy assassination but was blocked from successful prosecution by federal government cover up, whether he bungled his chance to uncover a conspiracy, or whether the entire case was an unproductive waste of resources." Thus Tanenbaum's and Fonzi's assertion that CIA personnel interfered in Garrison's investigation does not constitute a FRINGE THEORY, nor does their accusing CIA personnel of engaging in illegal activities constitute an "extraordinary claim." CIA personnel have been documented engaging in illegal activates. Examples include: 1) Operation CHAOS, an illegal disruption of domestic protest groups that included mail openings, and 2) Project MK-ULTRA, which as Senator Edward Kennedy described it, involved "...an 'extensive testing and experimentation' program which included covert drug tests on unwitting citizens 'at all social levels, high and low, native Americans and foreign.' Several of these tests involved the administration of LSD to 'unwitting subjects in social situations.' At least one death, that of Dr. [Frank] Olson, resulted from these activities."Mtracy9 (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

For the record, WP:FRINGE covers theories which are extraordinary or outside the mainstream. Since the prevailing consensus in mainstream sources is that Garrision's investigation was flawed and baseless, to claim that the CIA sabotaged it, is indeed outside the mainstream, and WP:FRINGE is an appropriate guideline. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The testimony of U.S. House Select Committee investigators Robert Tanenbaum and Gaeton Fonzi does not validate or invalidate Jim Garrison's investigation. The testimony of these investigators is just one more piece of evidence that should be presented.Mtracy9 (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ciravolo.jpg

Image:Ciravolo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale provided for Image:Ciravolo.jpg

See: image description page

Mtracy9 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)