Talk:Jim Garrison/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Jim Garrison. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

reverted much of the anon edit

I reverted much of the anon edit by 64.12.117.6. It seemed to have a few good points of additional info which I tried to incorporate, but had formating problems (for example, we should not lead off with his World War II service, which is not what he is best known for) and some NPOV problems (when discussing controversial people or topics which intelligent people can have disagreements about, differing opinions should be noted). Possibly more from 64.12.117.6's edits could go in the article, but please try to keep it more in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

quotes make Garrison look like the guilty one

The quotes make Garrison look like the guilty one! I object to this kind of bias. I have a site for conspiracy information that doesn't fit here too. Conwiki 03:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the quote attributed to Garrison (James Phelan) makes him appear to be a person to be held in contempt. It should be noted that Mr. Phelan has been discredited as an objective source on the Garrison investigation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.125.141.198 (talk • contribs) .

Garrison's birthplace of Denison, Iowa

I have verified Garrison's birthplace of Denison, Iowa with The Scribner Encyclopedia of American Lives, Gale Contemporary Authors Online, and Gale Newsmakers 1993 Please provide a source if you wish to change this info again. Gamaliel 22:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am from Knoxville, Iowa, and know that Jim Garrison was born there. The closest online verification I can come to right now is from IMDB, owned by Amazon. I hope this clears up any controversey over his birthplace. Maybe the Garrisons moved to Denison later on after Jim was born?

CIA was DCS

The CIA says that Clay Shaw was involved with the Domestic Contact Service. I don't know if this is as well as being involved with QKENCHANT or instead of, this should be addressed in the article. Ted BJ 06:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

THE JFK MOVIE

did he see it? what was his reaction? should this be on his page? I THINK SO!

Given that he was in the movie - he played Earl Warren - it is likely that he saw it.

Footnotes

There are literally volumes and volumes written (and lots of primary source information) about Big Jim's life, focusing primarily on his career and the period of the investigation, the trial, etc. I don't dispute the article, but really every claim should be either inline-sourced or properly footnoted, as there is no shortage of verifiable information to support such claims and "facts" (unlike Big Jim's and Oliver Stone's work). I've accordingly added the {{inline}} tag. Srajan01 02:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Changed the introduction to make it more neutral with respect to weather or not there was a "conspiracy", i.e. “a conspiracy” instead of “the truth behind a conspiracy” which implies there was one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.14.109 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination investigation

Is it the neutrality or the factuality of this section that is in dispute? My guess (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the first and last of the 3 paragraphs in the section are okay, but there are some problems with the middle one. I suggest adding {{fact}} (request for citation) for whatever specific points are in doubt. We need more & better info on Garrison's most famous case anyway. -- Infrogmation 20:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love if we could whip this article into shape, it certainly needs more information about the Shaw case. But not that paragraph of spin about the CIA. See Talk:Clay Shaw for more information. Gamaliel 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You state: "not willing to have this discussion again...in short... voluntary contacts to CIA does not create a connection [with the CIA], which was what Shaw said." Could you please refer me to a record of this discussion. Thank you.Mtracy9 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I went back in the history section and found: "Shaw was not "involved" with the CIA, he provided info about what he saw overseas like thousands of other Americans."

My question is this: "Wouldn't it be fairer to note in the article that Shaw had voluntary contacts with the CIA and let the reader decide (not you or me) whether this constituted a "connection" with the CIA?"

This is what the Wikipedia article on Clay Shaw seems to have done. It states:

"In 1979, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Clay Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contacts Division of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America. [14] By the mid-1970s, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS."Mtracy9 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That information is already provided in the Clay Shaw article. It need not appear in every that mentions his name. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with having it appear again. [uncivil comment removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtracy9 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not contributors, and keep your comments civil. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please address the question: What's wrong with having the information appear in this article? Many articles repeat information contained in other articles.Mtracy9 (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Clay Shaw's volunteering of information to the DCS is not particularly relevant to the matter of Jim Garrison's biography, especially when we have the more relevant articles on Shaw and his trial. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 18:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not the original reason that you gave, which was, "not willing to have this discussion again...in short... voluntary contacts to CIA does not create a connection [with the CIA]." To which I replied, "Wouldn't it be fairer to note in the article that Shaw had voluntary contacts with the CIA and let the reader decide (not you or me) whether this constituted a "connection" with the CIA?" Be that as it may, I will include the following in the "Aftermath" section of the "Trial of Clay Shaw," where you say that it would be more "relevant."

"In 1979, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Clay Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contacts Division of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America. [14] By the mid-1970s, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS."Mtracy9 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Mtracy9 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrongful Prosecution?

No details of the many wrongful prosecution see here for more details http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Grey Cameron Toney

The section 'Early life and career' begins, "Grey Cameron Toney was born in Denison, Iowa.". Who is Grey Cameron Toney and what has he to to do with this article? Alpheus (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Claim Regarding Judge Haggerty

Considering Haggerty's very public condemnation of Garrison and the trial in general, I find it hard to believe that he felt Shaw was lying and putting forth a con job. Does anyone know if this is accurate. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

it is in fact accurate it was said on A question for Conspiracy which was a documentry done around when JFK was in theatres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.205.131 (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Proper citation of military service

I don't know Mr. Garrison's military service, but this entry makes the research look dubious at best. First, it's doubtful he served in WWII in the National Guard, at least not if he fought in Europe. The National Guard is federalized prior to mobilizing for combat service. He may have mobilized in the National Guard and subsequently served in the Army during WWII. Second, the contributor notes that Mr. Garrison flew 35 combat aviation missions and later participated in the liberation of a Nazi concentration camp. This is improbable. Army Air Corps aviation units operated well behind the forward trace of maneuver combat units. Unless he changed job duties during the war it is improbable that he flew as an aviation crew member and then transferred to a maneuver unit that participated in the liberation of concentration camps. I'm interested in any biographer who has more definition into his service during WWII. Paratroop.eltigre (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessively POV sentence removed

I have deleted the following sentence for its excessively opinionated nature: "Given the vast amount of evidence adduced regarding the assassination, the cover up, and Jim's investigation producing the only indictment pursuant to the killing of JFK, future generations will have no other choice but to characterize Jim Garrison as a bona fide hero of American history." I have also edited the sentence before it, which reads "Political analyst Carl Oglesby was quoted as saying, "...I have done a study of Garrison: I come out of it thinking that he is one of the really first-rate class-act heroes of this whole ugly story [the killing of John F. Kennedy, the cover-up, and subsequent investigation], which suffers so badly for heroes:"[16] and so Jim Garrison and his legacy will remain," to remove the claim that this statement is the aspect of his legacy that will remain.108.48.52.115 (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

How did he die?

Article doesn't mention how he died. -- œ ^™ 06:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)