Jump to content

Talk:Jim Garrison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2015 release of personal documents

[edit]

@Stephen Singer: hi :)
I recently undid your edit where you removed some well sourced content. The content is sort of related/important to the article, so i had to put it back.

You had done a similar removal of content on March 27th. At that time, you removed the same content, along with some other content. The other content was definitely uncyclopaedic and not related to the topic, so i didnt add it back, but i did add the papers statement.

If you think it should be deleted from the article, then kindly post adequate reasoning on the talkpage. Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl of Arundel: please take a look at the page's history carefully. I didnt removed the content, i added it back. But when you reverted my edit, you removed the content. In your own words: You're either trolling or confused, let's hope it's the latter... —usernamekiran (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Somehow I transposed the edits. Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Garrison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best most recent work on this subject is James Di Eugeneo's The JFK Assassination, 2016 with new material 201847.132.246.159 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)David Neal[reply]

Sources

[edit]

The first sentence of the Legacy section states: "Political analyst and conspiracy believer 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 and subsequent investigation]." That material is cited to Interview with Carl Oglesby. JFK: The Question of Conspiracy, Documentary. Dir. & Writ. Danny Schechter, Dir. Barbara Kopple (Regency Enterprises, Le Studio Canal, & Alcor Films: A Global Vision Picture, 1992) and a YouTube version of it can be found here. While I think the Legacy section does need some balance from Garrison's supporters, that content needs to come from reliable secondary sources and I'm not convinced that a video put out by conspiracy theorists citing one conspiracy theorist praising another conspiracy theorist qualifies. Should this remain in the article, removed, or taken to WP:RSN for additional opinions? Thanks! -Location (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Legacy section

[edit]

I know Garrison's page is naturally a polarizing one, but I think the Legacy section fails to capture his nature as "conspiracy icon"—in the good and bad senses of the term. Looking through the history of edits, it seems that any positive words on him were whittled down over the years. Justifying arguments are mainly in the vein of "who cares what some conspiracy nuts think"...but Garrison's biography would naturally demand a lot of 'conspiracy nut' voices. But instead of painting this fairly apt portrait, the current Legacy section makes him sound like an outright crazy crook. You'd think he was the most hated man in America based on it.

I'm not saying we gotta praise the guy, but I think more effort should be made to balance his critics with some positive legacy concepts as well. Most Americans think of him (perhaps incorrectly) as the Atticus Finch-esque figure from JFK, and it's clear that notable people like Oliver Stone have a lot positive to say about the guy. Why isn't that included in his legacy, when its obviously the most notable part about it? Zach Arani (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of spouse

[edit]
  • What I think should be added: Spouse 2: P Weinert (1976)):
  • Why it should be changed:
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): Lousiana Vital Records Registry

AFB-Fr62 (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, the changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoldRomean (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Garrison&oldid=1333739376"