Talk:Jim Marrs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

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

[edit] Conspiracy Theorist

Should we not call a spade a spade? The man is a conspiracy theorist. this article seems like it was written by him or someone associated with him. I'd rather not edit the page, because conspiracy theorists tend to be psychologically unsound individuals, and I could not be NPOV in my edit. GreatGatsby 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Reliable Sources

There appears to be only one reliable sources, the San Francisco Chronicle, cited for this entire article. Please add mainstream reputable sources to this article, meeting WP:RS. So far, they're lacking, and that makes this article a candidate for Afd for lack of notability. Thanks. Morton devonshire 22:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about 911 theorists, but Marrs is one of the most notable and important people in the JFK conspiracy field and his views have been a major influence on public opinion, most importantly via the Stone movie. This article isn't going anywhere. Gamaliel 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You can dig your heels in, or you can provide reliable sources supporting your contention. Which is it going to be? If it's a "major influence", then show us where that major influence is, as it should therefore be easily sourced. Stomping your feet and saying "this article isn't going anywhere" won't keep it from the gallows. Morton devonshire 23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Already done. The fact that he wrote a book that was one of the two books that the film JFK was based on is more than sufficient. You can accept that and move on, or you can dig your heels in and submit yet another dubious AfD nomination. Gamaliel 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's already sourced in Wikipedia, and linked. Now, I suppose someone might not think to click on the JFK movie link to check the writing credit, so I added an internal ref to that. Could be construed as WP:OSTRICH, but of course not that I'm implying that's necessarily the case here. *Sparkhead 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How is the San Francisco Chronicle not a mainstream reliable source? I don't see where WP:RS specifices that more than one is necessary, althought there are several now. Also, how about actually spending a few seconds actually trying to improve articles (try Google) before leaping straight for the AFD? Though, from the barnstars you hand out, it looks like you're on a delete jihad based on article topic. Bottom line: he's a NYTimes bestselling author; delete that. Derex 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-read my first comment. Morton devonshire 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Re-read my second sentence. Derex 07:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)