Talk:Clay Shaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

Contents

[edit] Be careful on editing this article

I included a citation to the CIA's magazine called Studies in Intelligence. The article in the CIA magazine contains information derived from CIA memoranda from the New Orleans CIA Office about Clay Shaw. He is the subject of the article.

Today, one of the editors deleted out the information, along with the cite to the article. The reasons given by the editor:

"Said CIA link is actually an article by Max Holland, and in fact serves to debunk the Paese Sera article."

Since the editor deleted the link, the reader can't check out the accuracy of what the editor claims. Here it is. [1] It is a CIA web site. When you get there simply look up the title that was supplied and there you have the article based on historical records, and the author's opinion of the historical documents.

Here is the CIA's synopsis:

"The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination" by Max Holland, Stud. Intel. Fall/Winter 2001, No. 11:5-17 PDF Follows the trail of a Soviet disinformation effort that linked Clay Shaw, accused of masterminding the plot that led to President Kennedy's assassination by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, to CIA. The article traces the disinformation from its first appearance in a small, leftist Italian newspaper in 1967 to its role in stimulating Oliver Stone's film, JFK, many years later. Provides a detailed account of how the Agency reacted to Garrison's efforts, what Shaw's relationship with the Agency actually was, and the ultimate impact the disinformation had on the belief of many that the Agency had a hand in Kennedy's death.[2]

Whatever the the intent was for publishing the article, the article can be cited for the material it contains. The editor who deleted the information in this article on Shaw believes that if the CIA's intent was to "debunk" some theory or another , that the factual information presented in the article is only valid for that purpose. This is inaccurate. What does one believe the CIA is doing, giving one set of facts for one issue and changing the facts when another issue comes up that relates to the same facts? The editor needs to explain himself. RPJ 04:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your cite was inaccurate and misleading. You said it was from the CIA when it wasn't and gave the impression that the link was confirming Shaw's covert ties to the CIA, which it wasn't it's in fact debunking it. Ramsquire 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The editor above must have made a mistake. The web site is a CIA web site, and the magazine is a CIA magazine. I put the link back in the article. Click the link and go to it. Thank you. RPJ!
You're right... it is my comments that are misleading. Let me clear it up once and for all. The web site is a CIA website, but the article is from Max Holland, and has no CIA link except for it being in a CIA magazine and on the cia.gov website. To cite the information to the CIA is like giving a library a citation because it has George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in its stock. The website/magazine is just a respository for hundreds of articles written over time relating to intelligence. My advice is to just cite the article to Holland. Instead of saying "This information is contained in a magazine article published by the CIA called: "The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination.", you'd overcome my objection by saying "According to Max Holland..." and then citing the link to his article.
The other issue I had is that you present the evidence in a one-sided way. Unless the reader checked the cite, he would have no way to know that the article actually serves to state that Shaw had no links to the CIA, which is counter to the information presented in the article. Whatever happened to presenting both viewpoints, and letting the reader decide? Let the readers know the main thesis of the article instead of using the information in the article in a misleading way.
Ramsquire 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Allegation of one-sided and misleading edits

One editor ("Ramsquire")contends that the edits I made to the Shaw article "present the evidence in a one-sided way." That is inaccurate. Editor Ramsquire has simply misread the article. Contrary to what Ramsquire believes, the article does not state that "Shaw had no links to the CIA."

The main thesis of the article contends that the CIA was not linked to the Kennedy assassination--not that there weren't links between the CIA and Clay Shaw. Long after Shaw's trial, the CIA wasvforced to tell the truth about the first eight years of its relationship with Clay Shaw. The CIA now states it can't reveal its secret documents on the relationship between it and Shaw on the day Kennedy was murdered. Therefore, the relationship on the day of the murder is still a mystery. 04:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


See RPJ, this is really getting tedious. Read your previous edits and let me know, honestly if you previous edits accurately described the article? Let's go through it.
Shaw had considerable contact with the CIA after the War, which both he and the CIA denied for many years after the Kennedy assassination. [3]
The implication is clear, Shaw and the CIA lied and therefore may had some role in the Kennedy assassination. That's misleading, it is also inaccurate, because Shaw denied being a CIA agent or employee, which Garriason accused him of, not of not ever having contact with the CIA. As far as we know, Shaw was right and has no link to the CIA.
Over an eight year period, Shaw relayed information on 33 separate occasions to the CIA. His reports about devaluation in Peru, a proposed new highway in Nicaragua, and the desire of Western European countries to trade with the Soviet block were graded by the CIA “of value” and “reliable.” the CIA relationship with Shaw was one of the secrets which the CIA hid from the public for many years while it denied any relationship.
First, whether or not the above described contacts are "considerable" is POV. Also, in your edit there is no mention that Shaw was one of literally thousands of American businessmen conducting international business at the time who presented such information to the CIA as part of their "civic duty". That's in the article by the way (I did read it, nothwithstanding your snide comments). That's what I mean by one-sided presentation. You mention Shaw's contacts, but not its context. The contacts incriminate Shaw, but the context exonerates him. Present both, let the reader decide. Otherwise it's misleading.
- This is contained in a press report by the CIA called: "The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination"[4]
As discussed before, it's an article from Max Holland called "The Lie That Linked the CIA to the Kennedy Assassination, and it is located in a CIA magazine relating to Intelligence and can be found on the CIA website. Your presentation makes it appear that the CIA wrote some kind of report that contains the information. They didn't, that's misleading.
- As of today, the CIA won't release any documents describing the relationship between Shaw and the CIA after the first eight years of Shaw's affiliation. The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination
What the article says is that what happened after 1956 has not been revealed in recently released documents. It is simply spin, misleading and inaccurate to cite the article as support for the proposition that the CIA won't release the documents. The articles says the information is not in what was released. Your sentence makes it seem as though some sort of document exists and the CIA is holding it from the public. You don't know that (unless you work for the CIA, and are whistleblowing here at Wiki {joke intended}), and that isn't implied in the article. In fact, the article says, "Why the relationship ended after 1956 is not revealed in any of the recently declassified CIA files or Shaw’s own papers. Whatever the reason, the documentary record is clear: Shaw was not handed off by the DCS and developed as a covert operative by the CIA’s Plans (now Operations) Directorate. The relationship just lapsed. He had never received any remuneration and probably considered the reporting a civic duty that was no longer urgent once the hostility between the two superpowers became frozen in place and a new world war no longer appeared imminent."
Ramsquire 19:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any of this go in?

In 1979, Richard Helms (former director of the CIA) gave sworn testimony in a civil deposition which confirmed Shaw's contact with the CIA prior to the Shaw trial. In addition, it has been discovered, through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests that Clay Shaw had access to and clearance from the CIA to a CIA program called QKENCHANT. To date, there is no unclassified information concerning what the QKENCHANT program was about. However, whether in fact this CIA connection tied Shaw to the Kennedy assassination is an unresolved and contested issue even to date. The controversy surrounding Clay Shaw's now apparent CIA activities will not be conclusively resolved until the scope and purpose of the QKENCHANT program are fully revealed. RPJ 08:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged CIA connection

Is it me or isn't this all misleading? The subheading talks about an "alleged CIA connection" but then the body of the subheading contains this sentence: "In the article, Max Holland defended the CIA and argued that Communist propaganda was the source of false allegations that Shaw was connected with the CIA and involved in the Kennedy assassination."

Why doesn't the editor just put in the nature of Shaw's contact with the CIA, and stop resorting to this cryptic innuendo? Just put this in the article and move on: "From 1948 to 1956, Shaw, along with many other businessmen, was a one of the CIA Domestic Service Contacts. This position was not a paid CIA position, and did not carry any covert responsibility, or CIA affiliation with it."

Ramsquire 19:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Shaw's CIA connections

Shaw claimed: "I have never had any connection with the CIA." [5]

Editor Ramsquire believes Clay Shaw. Therefore, editor Ramsquire urges the following information be deleted and permenantly kept out of the Clay Shaw article:

Don't misrepresent my position. My position is clear from what I put above. I clearly state, "as far as we know, Shaw was right and has no link to the CIA." I stand by that. Does calling 911 give you a connection to the local police? Shaw's contact with the CIA, based on what we know, does not rise to the level of him being connected, which implies a paid or official position, with the CIA.
Also, I never call for anything to be deleted and permanently kept out of the Clay Shaw article. To say that is an out and out lie. Again, everything I said is clear to the readers of the talk page. I only asked that you cite the article properly, and give the context of the information you are presenting. Why are you refusing to understand this?
Ramsquire 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Over an eight year period, Shaw relayed information on 33 separate occasions to the CIA. His reports about devaluation in Peru, a proposed new highway in Nicaragua, and the desire of Western European countries to trade with the Soviet block were graded by the CIA “of value” and “reliable.” Source: Memo to Director, DCS, from Chief, New Orleans Office, re Clay Shaw, 3 March 1967, JFK-M-04 (F3), Box 1, CIA Series; Memorandum re Garrison Investigation: Queries from Justice Department, 28 September 1967, Box 6, Russell Holmes Papers; various Information Reports, JFK-M-04 (F2), Box 1, CIA Series—all JFK NARA. The CIA relationship with Shaw was one of the secrets which the CIA and Shaw hid from the public for many years while it denied any relationship.The connection between the two didn't become public until 1979, when a former CIA dirctor had to testify under oath about it and according to the article "divulged the kernel of truth that the Agency and Shaw had struggled to keep secret." This information is all contained in a magazine article written by Max Holland and published by the CIA called: "The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination"[6] Footnote 15[13] As of today, the CIA won't release any documents describing the relationship between Shaw and the CIA after the first eight years of Shaw's affiliation. The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination In the article, Max Holland defended the CIA and argued that Communist propaganda was the source of false allegations that Shaw was connected with the CIA and involved in the Kennedy assassination.

I'm putting this back in the article since editor Ramsquire is relying on information over 27 years out of date. Now, I don't mind if Ramsquire wants to keep in the descredited denials of Shaw and the CIA that they had no relationship. Their decade s long deception should be helpful to the reader to understand the committment of the CIA to keep this information as quiet as possible. RPJ 07:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Comment: Shaw's ties to the CIA

This is a dispute about how to present the information contained in Max Holland's article [[7]The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination. User RPJ believes Ramsquire is editing out information based on my personal belief. User Ramsquire believes that RPJ is spinning the source by not placing important contextual information in his blurb.

The statements by the two editors are listed above. Please advise. Ramsquire 17:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Regarding "As of today, the CIA won't release any documents describing the relationship between Shaw and the CIA after the first eight years of Shaw's affiliation," do we have a cite establishing that the CIA is specifically withholding information regarding such a relationship? Because, otherwise, I don't see how this phrasing makes sense, as it would insinuate an unestablished relationship. Joegoodfriend 19:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Okay, here's my two cents worth.

It seems to me that the editor here is simply trying to put the Shaw/CIA relationship in its proper context, and to ensure that the citation properly reflects what is known. I agree that the way RPJ is portraying this tends to imply a far more sinister relationship than what we actually know to have existed. The possibility remains that the CIA in fact DID have a relationship that included connections to the JFK assassination, but until we get that information, or something far more concrete than reports on Nicaragua and the like, you should, RPJ, present the Shaw/CIA links in their proper context.

As an aside, I noted a similar misleading connection with the story of the FBI agent who was ordered to destroy a note Oswald left him shortly before the assassination, and the very belated admition that this note was destroyed. It sure sounds sinister, until you read the source and realize that Oswald was threatening the agent for "harassing" he and his wife by putting him under surveilance and that the note has no information of any relevance to the assassination itself. But the IMPRESSION that the Agency was withholding and/or destroying information which it knew in connection with the assassination is certainly there if one doesn't explore the issue further. It DID destroy information, but nothing of relevance.

It is entirely appropriate, when talking of possible connections in relation to various conspiracy theories, to cite those connections and how they may be evidence of conspiracies. But it is incumbent on those making the links to clearly establish where the information comes from and how strong the link in fact is. My reading of the Shaw/CIA link seems to me to making a lot of hay over what were relatively innoccuous and routine contacts in the 50s, and the fact that the CIA didn't discuss these tenuous links for many years.

Well, that to me is what the CIA is famous for - excessive secrecy and a beauracratic resistance to prooffering information unless they are forced to, no matter how innoccuous.

To imply, as you do the way you present the connections here between Shaw and the CIA, that there is hidden information, a possible link to the assassination itself, is not supported by any evidence which so far has been presented. For that reason, since we can imagine any scenario here, characterizing what we DON'T know as being something suspicious is not acceptable, nor appropriate.

Perhaps something along the lines of "Shaw, as many American businessmen, supplied the CIA with information of foreign lands. Otherwise, he is not known to have had any relationship with the CIA that pertains to the assassination." This would more fairly represent what the information tells us. The way you present it, RPJ, suggests a more elborate relationship which is not supported by anything other than your belief that such a relationship existed.

--Johnny Canuck 19:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that to me is what the CIA is famous for - excessive secrecy and a beauracratic resistance to prooffering information unless they are forced to, no matter how innoccuous.
Plus they do have a valid interests in keeping their methods of gathering information secret. Ramsquire 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I summarized the Shaw-CIA statement and placed it after his WWII paragraph. It does'nt need a whole section. The citation link just goes to a CIA search page. Where is the actual article? Does it indeed support the statement, as it reads now, in the Clay Shaw wikiarticle? That seems to be the bone of contention. The revealation, to me, does'nt seem that earth-shattering. Mytwocents 20:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've updated the link RPJ inserted so it goes directly to the article now. Gamaliel 21:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw and the CIA: false witnesses

The readers and editors should keep in mind an evidentiary rule that seems to apply to the Shaw/CIA matter. Both Shaw and the CIA gave false statements about their relationship for many years during which the CIA "struggled to keep [it]secret," and Clay Shaw lied about to the national news media, then lied about it on the witness stand.

Then, in 1979, a CIA official had to testify under oath about it and admitted the connection between the CIA and Shaw.

Now, some of the editors believe the relationship between Shaw and the CIA stopped in 1956. In other words, before Kennedy was murdered. On what is this belief based? It turns out that the CIA tells us this, but, then claims, that the documents that would prove such a statement have not yet been declassified by the CIA.

Here is how the law handles such deceit as conducted by Shaw and the CIA.

A jury may reject testimony of a witness, if the witness testified falsely about any important fact, or intentionally exagerated or concealed an important fact in order to mislead or deceive the jury.

It is necessary at some level, for editors not to believe too fervantly in their cause, and allow their beliefs to affect their judgments as editors

RPJ 03:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that there was any further connection between Shaw and the CIA? Until you come up with something, we won't be replacing the statements of Shaw and the CIA with conspiracy speculation. Gamaliel 04:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, RPJ, you are elevating the fact that Shaw and the CIA mispoke about the fact they had contacts in the 50s to something of great signifigance. Until there is any evidence beyond the contacts we already know, noting they lied is irrelevant.

And noting that in terms of evidentary rules, a witness' testimony can be rejected begs the question: If a witness is shown to have lied, then should we not therefore dismiss ANYTHING that witness says? If this is so, then we are left with, when we try to build a scenario, NOTHING to add. By your logic, we should simply toss out any reference to the CIA and Shaw as the only evidence we have - which comes from both - is by your defintion unreliable.

What the editor has done here is simply suggest that the evidence we do know is that there were those particular limited contacts in the 50s. To note that they concealed that information for many years doesn't mean we can speculate about any number of unknown contacts - it means that at the very least, they were evasive and overly secretive. There are many, many reasons they could have been evasive, most which have nothing to do with concealing a connection to the JFK assassination, but for me to speculate about why they were evasive would be stepping into the realm of personal opinion. Similarily, there is currently no basis for your contention that the CIA and Shaw had contacts related to the assassination, and to imply that is to inject personal opinion into the text.

--Johnny Canuck 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. To imply that Shaw or the CIA was lying would be pure speculation as to the exact nature of the contacts. As far as we know, what Shaw was doing is akin to someone voluntarily relaying information to the local police. It would be silly to say that that person is connected with the police simply on that act alone. Ramsquire 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

People relaying information to the police are known as "informers", and are connected to them; sometimes by being paid, or not. See below. andreasegde 11:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. Would you call all eyewitnesses to crimes informers? See below. Ramsquire 19:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The truth as we know it

As this is such a short article, I am amazed at the length of the discussion page. Why argue about one sentence? It seems to me that the arguments are based on one word, or two. I believe (my POV) that putting words and phrases in like "considerably", "many people think", and "it has been contested" without citations is defintely not why we are here. Let´s get rid of them - forever.

I have read the the page (and the comments) about three times, and I have cleaned the main page up a bit. It was confusing, and there are still some red links that should have been fixed long ago. We should be working together on this page to make it easily readable, and concise, and then concentrate on the other things. Do you all agree? I hope so.

Anyway; as for Clay Shaw saying that he signed a card before it had been filled out makes me wonder... Cup of tea anyone? andreasegde 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why argue about one sentence? I don't know which sentence you are referring to, but if the sentence contains inaccurate and unverifiable information, and editors refuse to fix it, then there certainly needs to be some discussion about it. No? And one of the suggested methods to reach consensus is to have a RfC.
Is it not worthy of discussion if a editor cites an article for the proposition that a government agency "won't" release evidence (implying that such evidence exists) when in actuality the article says the evidence isn't in the material released (which is more neutral as to the existence of this evidence)?Ramsquire 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to all who participated in the RfC

As andreasegde points out, for such a short article, RPJ and I were getting into a lengthy dispute about what is essentially a very basic matter. Namely, what does the article say, and whether RPJ was accurately relaying that. All of the commments seem to agree with the proposition that the article was being misinterpreted, and I do agree with the changes that have been made. Once again, thanks to all for their insight. Ramsquire 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Everybody should use citations. If they are found and are well-sourced, then they are right. End of argument.
  • Any pieces written with citations that are then deleted is against WP policy.

This has been pointed out hundreds of times. Let´s play by the rules, and be nice. andreasegde 10:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not the end of the argument, you have to accurately portray what you are citing. Just because someone puts a source on their statement, doesn't mean it stays in. If they are misquoting the source, the entry should be deleted because in effect their entry remains unverifiable. You can't overcome that by misquoting or stretching sources.Ramsquire 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No Ramsquire, you are incorrect. No one agreed with your contention that there were no links between Shaw and the CIA. 33 assignments over an eight year period clearly show Shaw being connected to the CIA. The CIA now admits there was a connection and the CIA now admits it "struggled" to keep it secret. Just accept it-you were wrong.
Your attempt to change the subject from what you first said, in error, needs to be recognized by yourself. RPJ 05:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. RPJ, the entire argument is above. You'll note that I said that you mis-cited your source (inaccurate) and that your edits were one-sided (misleading). Seems that most of the comments agreed with my take on it. I am correct. Here's a direct quote: "The other issue I had is that you present the evidence in a one-sided way. Unless the reader checked the cite, he would have no way to know that the article actually serves to state that Shaw had no links to the CIA, which is counter to the information presented in the article. Whatever happened to presenting both viewpoints, and letting the reader decide? Let the readers know the main thesis of the article instead of using the information in the article in a misleading way."
But since you want to pursue your position. I'll play your game. 33 "assignments"? Where are you getting that from? Cite your sources. Otherwise its just wild speculating and you're free to do that on your blog, just not at Wiki. And those 33 contacts do not "clearly" show anything. Shaw was accused of being an employee of the CIA, he was not. His contacts were voluntary and unpaid. If you have contradictory information provide it.
To me "linked", "connected with", "tied", "part of" all imply a paid and/or covert position with the CIA. Shaw was NOT any of these, unless you can provide contrary proof of his employment with the agency. The CIA admitted that Shaw voluntarily contacted them and they didn't want to release the contacts. I'm sure one reason for their hesitance is due to people then wanting to attach sinister motives behind these contacts, as well as them protecting their methods of collecting intelligence. I, as well as millions of other Americans have contacted the CIA over the years. It does not mean we have connection with the organization or that we are informers.
If you just had WP:FAITH with other editors, maybe they'd extend it to you. When I first read your edit,I assumed you misread the article and that you did not purposely lie to make a case. Now, after comments by other users saying essentially the same thing about your edits, along with your continued efforts to push this theory without any sources. I wonder if you did try to mislead readers on purpose. If that's the case, your just trolling here, which ruins the experience for everyone.
Ramsquire 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw and the CIA

I have just taken out the conflicting piece about there being no evidence that Shaw was connected with the CIA, because both sides used the same citation. This is not possible.

Plus: Admit the point that Shaw was connected to the CIA, but that his "information" was something that any one of us could find out today by picking up a newspaper or by surfing the Web. Connected? Yes. Important? No. andreasegde 11:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you define "connection" so vaguely as to encompass anything, yes, he was "connected". If I provide the police with information about a crime I witnessed, am I "connected" to the police? That essentially the extent of Shaw's "connection" to the CIA. Gamaliel 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! He was a "two-bit" informant, but you are trying to dissasociate Clay from the CIA. Why? He provided information for them on a regular basis, or more than once, and about nothing really important. Why separate him from them when he only provided routine information? I don´t see anything sinister in that at all. What´s the problem? Do you see conspiracy theories? I don´t.
Plus: Why is it that if anybody is remotely "connected" with any government organisation they are to be seen as suspect? Are we all so terrified of being good citizens? The truth is the truth, no matter how mundane, or unimportant it is. Let´s take a step back and look at it from a different perspective... andreasegde 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
We're trying to "separate" Shaw from the CIA merely by nothing that there was no connection between him and the organization beyond his routine supply of information to the DCS. It is important to do this because this non-connection to the CIA is often taken as "evidence" that there is an actual, more sinister connection between the two. Gamaliel 15:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Why should there be a "more sinister connection"? Where is the evidence? There is none, as of yet. Sorry, (Gamaliel) but you are adding to the sinister theories that permeate these pages, by "trying" to deny Shaw´s connection. "If Gamaliel says he wasn´t connected, then he must have been." (Yes, you know I have read the archives. :) I find this polar attitude from everyone to be one-sided...
Let´s stand back and tell the truth, however mundane, or boring, it is. We should not take a rigid stand for one side, or the other, but we should look at the simple facts. They might turn out to be less interesting than people want them them to be... but would that be such a bad thing? andreasegde 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there is no evidence for a more sinister connection. So what is wrong with pointing that out? Gamaliel 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so why point out there was no sinister connection when there was none? I don´t get this... andreasegde 13:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Because many people believe there was a sinister connection. Because many notable authors such as Garrison have written that there was. This issue must be addressed. Gamaliel 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Andrews

Good grief... What is this all about?

"Andrews also said (to the Orleans Parish Grand Jury and on an NBC news report) that Bertrand was not Shaw, but was a client of his named Eugene Davis. Eugene Davis then denied being Clay Bertrand, but Andrews never claimed Davis used "Clay Bertrand" as an alias, and said that only that he had given Davis´ name without Davis' knowledge."

I took my father´s name, but I took it without his knowledge (laugh...) andreasegde 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last thing on Clay Shaw and CIA

I changed the article to connect the charges in Garrison's book to Shaw's denials and his later found out contacts. Garrison's charge in Assassins is the only thing that makes Shaw contacts with the CIA relevant. Based on the available evidence, it appears that these contacts were akin to a civilian voluntarily contacting their police department. However, since Garrison accused Shaw of being a spook these contacts should be in the article under the same heading of the book that levelled the charge.

Also, we should probably strive to put cites at the end of the sentence, not the middle to make it easier for readers to follow along.

Finally, Oliver Stone's movie was based on Garrison's book and another book by Jim Marrs almost equally so the language stating Garrison book was the "main" source was inaccurate.

Ramsquire 18:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw was NOT an INFORMER

An informer is paid for their work. Shaw voluntarily gave information to the CIA and was unpaid. Even when informers aren't paid with cash, they are given something in return, some sort of compensation, for their information. There is not one bit of information currently available showing Shaw received any compensation for the information he supplied to the CIA.

To imply that Shaw was an informer, or deliberately state that he was "two-bit informant" without any source for the accusation comes very close to libelling a dead man. (Although one cannot file a lawsuit for libel against a dead man in many jurisdictions, the act of libelling can still be performed after someone's death and should be avoided). Editor's here need to be aware of the Sigenthaler situation, and be careful when discussing persons on these pages. Please try to go with what you can prove or at least blame on a third party source when discussing actual people on Wikipedia, please.

Ramsquire 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Clay gave information to the CIA. Proven. It was not very important, but "reliable", and "useful". Proven. What´s the problem? If we start with the idea that any kind of "connection" with the CIA is "sinister", then we are starting at the wrong place, are we not? Let´s leave it and move on.

BTW, the "two-bit" was a quote (from somebody else/a third party). andreasegde 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to move on. This is a very serious issue I see at Wikipedia, and if editors aren't more careful, eventually this project will be shut down because of it. The problem is that people throwing out descriptors of people without evidence supporting it. You describe Shaw as an informant to the CIA without any evidence to back it up. That's placing Shaw in a false light, which is libellous. If he were alive, he would have a strong case against you and Wikipedia for defamation because it would make him seem like a liar for his repeated denials of being connected to the CIA. I'm not caught up with whether his contacts were sinister or not. I'm trying to get people to understand that you can't say someone was a CIA informant without evidence supporting it. Ramsquire 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn´t say that he was, but other people (who know better than I) said it. This is why we are here: to report information from verifiable sources. Saying that I personally said it is also a bit unfair, is it not? I was quoting from other sources. I think a cup of tea and a slice of cake is in order... andreasegde 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few things to read through:

"Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified, under oath, in 1979 that Clay Shaw had from 1948 to 1956 been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Division of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad and specifically from his visits to countries behind the Iron Curtain. By the mid-1970s 150,000 Americans (businessmen, journalists, travelers) had provided such information to the DCS. It is unknown now whether this information would have influenced the outcome of the Shaw trial in New Orleans." [8]

"Secret documents released by the Agency show something entirely different, as does the testimony of former CIA insider Victor Marchetti." [9]

"But Marchetti and the others were told that the CIA's connection with Shaw was to be top secret. The agency did not want "even a remote connection with Shaw" to leak out, Marchetti said.” [10]

“Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961”. LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON - General Counsel. [11]

His documented connection to the CIA suddenly ended in 1956, odd for someone a CIA internal report called a ´valuable informant´". [12] andreasegde 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you never attributed it to anyone else, so I, as long as other people reading this page, would have no idea if you were just repeating information heard elsewhere or if it was coming from you. If you aren't saying it personally I apologize for wrongly accusing you, but it wasn't clear from your edits. That's why we all need to be careful about what we say about people and how we say it. This issue usually comes up more in the political articles, where I also edit. So I admit to being a bit more sensitive to these unsourced descriptors than others users.
I am aware of all the information you provided. But none of it is proof of Shaw doing anything more than voluntarily contacting the agency on average once every three months for eight years. Keep in mind that the charge from Garrison was that Shaw was an employee of the CIA. Richard Helms testifed that Shaw volunteered information to the DSC. An employee wouldn't voluntarily give information, it is considered his job. Marchetti explicitly states that Shaw was gave info to the DCS, which is now admitted by all. Marchetti's claim that this was a cover is his own speculation based on the fact that "the CIA lied all the time." That's not proof or evidence. Just his opinion.
Can't we just agree that without proof actually describing Shaw as a spook, we should just state what we know, and not try to label it? In a nutshell, that's all I'm saying. Ramsquire 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that´s absolutely right, Ramsquire. I totally agree with you. No labels; just the facts. andreasegde 17:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it so odd that Shaw stopped providing the CIA with information? Max Holland writes: "Why the relationship ended after 1956 is not revealed in any of the recently declassified CIA files or Shaw’s own papers. Whatever the reason, the documentary record is clear: Shaw was not handed off by the DCS and developed as a covert operative by the CIA’s Plans (now Operations) Directorate. The relationship just lapsed. He had never received any remuneration and probably considered the reporting a civic duty that was no longer urgent once the hostility between the two superpowers became frozen in place and a new world war no longer appeared imminent." [13]

And here is the full quote of your second citation: "Jim Garrison charged that Clay Shaw was a CIA agent, and Garrison supporters have accepted this view. But secret documents released by the Agency show something entirely different, as does the testimony of former CIA insider Victor Marchetti." Gamaliel 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even going to get to that part. Good catch. Ramsquire 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
"And here is the full quote" - is only refuting Garrison´s claims; which is going around in circles. andreasegde 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and fact

This is exactly the problem - but there is a way out. What Garrison theorised, what theorists personally say, and also what anti-theorists state "is the truth" is worth nothing at all. We are all wrong if we state our own personal opinions. We are all wrong if we fight against "supposed", or "inferred" comments, from both sides. If we do that we are all wasting our time and knocking our heads against each other. Let´s stop it.
  • Sometimes the facts are not as interesting as we think they are.
  • Sometimes the smaller things are more important than we think they are. andreasegde 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
What is an anti-theorist?... just kidding... I understand what you are saying and agree with the theory. It's just that it doesn't work in the real world of Wiki, where certain users refuse to see the larger picture and can't always agree on whether something is personal bias or supported fact. Ramsquire 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but it´s not a theory; it´s a real-world Wiki fact. We must all stick to the rules of Wiki, and then life would be a lot simpler. I found it very tedious at first; to constantly open Winword and then copy quotes and Web addresses over, but that is the work we have (voluntarily) choosen to do. We are here as editors, who report the facts as we know them (with citations) whether they conform to our own opinions or not. (That´s the hard bit...) As for the future:
  • Any inserts without a citation should be deleted. Words and phrases like, "Inferred, many people believe, it has been said," and "it has been reported", should be considered a POV.
  • Any edits with a verifiable citation should be left alone - and never deleted - or moved to somewhere else so as to conform to style. (That´s where the arguments should start, if any...)
  • People once fervently believed that the Earth was flat. andreasegde 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Any inserts without a citation should be deleted. Words and phrases like, "Inferred, many people believe, it has been said," and "it has been reported", should be considered a POV.
  • Any edits with a verifiable citation should be left alone - and never deleted - or moved to somewhere else so as to conform to style. (That´s where the arguments should start, if any...)
Just to clarify, Wiki does allow information that is general knowledge to be placed into the article without citations. What is "general knowledge" is always debatable. Also, an edit must accurately portray what it is citing, and the information must be verifiable. For examply, an edit that states, "The Earth is a spheroid" that is cited to the Warren Commission should either be deleted as that issue of the shape of the Earth isn't addressed by the Warren Commission, or edited to give the sentence a proper cite. This is so, even though the information is verifiable, and the cite is to a reliable source. My point is not all editors would want to change their edit or accept the advice of other editors, even in the situation given above. So it's all good to say, let's work together but you have to deal with the fact that there are trolls in Wiki, and they must be dealt with differently and sometimes harshly. Ramsquire 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If I read your comments correctly, you are saying that “general knowledge is allowed but is always debatable”. This is a paradox.
What is considered "general knowledge" is always debatable. It's like how common sense, is rarely ever common. It is a paradox, but hey that's how it works in sometimes.Ramsquire 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Editors are not inviolable; we are here firstly to accept advice, work together, and to put cited and/or unanimously accepted information into articles.
Agreed.Ramsquire 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Trolls are not to be fed, or dealt with “differently” or “harshly” - they are to be blocked. andreasegde 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't blocking both harsh and different treatment? Ramsquire 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
"Harsh" is described as "extremely unkind or cruel". Blocking is a simple way of stopping people from contributing when they ignore the rules of Wikipedia. andreasegde 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Think of the context though. Isn't it kind of cruel to block someone from contributing in a forum that boasts "anyone can edit". Now in terms of going to prison, and being beaten, no blocking isn't harsh. But in the context of wiki, I can't think of a worst fate. Being told that anyone "but you (blocked user)" can edit is sort of harsh, even though the user often deserves the punishment and asks for it. But hey it's one of those things that reasonable people can differ on. Ramsquire 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It isn´t cruel to block someone; it is necessary, and simple. It´s the only way that Wikipedia can survive, because otherwise it would lead to anarchy/chaos. Editors can only contribute if they firstly accept, and agree, that they should work together. andreasegde 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/l/a/Talk%7EClay_Shaw_d096.html"