Talk:Jim Garrison

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jim Garrison article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jim Garrison. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jim Garrison at the Reference desk.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

	Biography portal 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
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

United States: Louisiana / New Orleans / Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Louisiana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

United States courts and judges

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"Garrison remains a controversial figure."[edit]

The second paragraph states "Garrison remains a controversial figure...". However the following sentences of the same paragraph are not related to Garrison but to the JFK Trial/Case: "...Opinions differ as to whether he uncovered a conspiracy behind the John F. Kennedy assassination, but was blocked from successful prosecution by a federal government cover-up, whether he bungled his chance to uncover a conspiracy, or whether the entire case was an unproductive waste of resources."

Hence, the concept of a Garrison as a "controversial figure" is explained from the JFK assassination perspective.

In this context, Garrison is not a controversial figure... the "JFK assassination" certainly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.252.132 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Abuse Allegations[edit]

I have read allegations that Garrison was involved in some sort of sexual misconduct involving young boys at his athletic club. I haven't looked much into this, but I was wondering if there was any sort of consensus as to the validity of these allegations, and whether or not they should be included in the article. Lonenut2000 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Earl of Arundel: are we friends? You didnt say sorry :-/ —usernamekiran (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[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: 18 January 2022).

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]