Talk:Clay Shaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Clay Shaw. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Law (Rated Start-Class) 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. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. WikiProject Biography     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject New Orleans (Rated B-Class) (Rated mid-importance) New Orleans Portal Clay Shaw is within the scope of the WikiProject New Orleans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to New Orleans and the Greater New Orleans area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. Looking to help? Check out the New Orleans To-do List: edit - history - watch - purge Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Biographies: James Gallier, the noted New Orleans architect. Adrian de Pauger, the French architect who developed the plan for rebuilding New Orleans after the city was entirely destroyed in the fire of 1788 March 21. After two centuries, the French Quarter still conforms to de Pauger's original street plan. Archbishops: Alfred Clifton Hughes, Francis Bible Schulte Culture: Food and Restaurants: Bacco, Bourbon House Seafood, Cafe Adelaide, Crawfish Bisque, Dickie Brennan's Steakhouse, Grits and Grillades, Hubig's Pies, Morning Call (coffee house), Mr. B's Bistro, Palace Cafe, Ralph's on the Park, Red Fish Grill Media: Neighborhoods: Central City: East Riverside, Lower Garden District, including the Coliseum neighborhood, Milan Uptown: Black Pearl, Dixon, Freret, Leonidas (also called West Carrollton), Fontainebleau (also called Marlyville), West Riverside. Mid-City Area: Fairground, Gravier (also called Tulane/Gravier) Lakeview Area: Lakeshore / Lake Vista, Lakewood Gentilly Area: Dillard, Filmore, Gentilly Terrace, Lake Terrace, Milneburg, St. Anthony Bywater Area: Desire area, Florida area Lower Ninth Ward Area: Holy Cross New Orleans East Area: Little Woods (also called Edge Lake), Pines Village, Plum Orchard, Read Boulevard East, Read Boulevard West, West Lake Forest, Village de L'Est, Lake Catherine, New Orleans Algiers Area: Algiers Naval Station, Behrman, New Orleans, Tall Timbers / Brechtel, English Turn, New Aurora (Includes River Park, Cut Off, and Lower Coast) Streets: Caffin Avenue, Erato Street, Metairie Road Photos: For New Orleans-related articles needing a photograph, use {{reqphoto|in=New Orleans}} in the talk page, which adds the article to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Orleans. You can help Wikipedia by uploading freely licensed photographs for these articles to Wikimedia Commons. Copyedit: Elevate New Orleans article to featured article status. Expand: Avery Alexander, Martin Behrman, Bourbon Street, Brennan's, Chateau Coffee Cafe, Francis Xavier Seelos, Galatoire's, Notre Dame Seminary, Our Lady of Prompt Succor, St. Charles Avenue, Yat (New Orleans), Audubon Park, East Carrollton Stubs: Tag articles with {{NewOrleans-stub}} Other: Add {{WikiProject New Orleans|class=|importance}} to all New Orleans related articles and assign "class" and "importance" ratings. WikiProject Texas (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Archives Clay Shaw - Archive 1

Contents 1 Thanks to all who participated in the RfC 2 Shaw was NOT an INFORMER 3 Bias and fact 4 Sources

[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 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." [1]

"Secret documents released by the Agency show something entirely different, as does the testimony of former CIA insider Victor Marchetti." [2]

"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.” [3]

“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. [4]

His documented connection to the CIA suddenly ended in 1956, odd for someone a CIA internal report called a ´valuable informant´". [5] 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." [6]

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)

While we're talking about fact, I'd like to point out that while this article references the NOLA judge's refusal to accept testimony that Shaw had admitted to using the alias Clay Bertrand, "Clay Bertrand" does indeed redirect to Clay Shaw. I suppose that's okay since it's obviously a related topic and some accept Shaw and Bertrand to be the same person, but I just thought I'd point this out. --WarEagleTH 08:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Once again, it seems that many articles relating to Clay Shaw and the Garrison trial are being inundated with information which provides undue weight in support of Garrison. Particularly in this article, we have a memo, which never made it into the final HSCA report, being used to imply that Shaw was a CIA agent. As was discussed in previous arbitration, this is not an appropriate use of sources. Adding the claims made in a memo to the article as indisputable fact is original research. [7] I simply ask editors to remember that Wikipedia prefers the use of reliable secondary sources to verify information. Thank you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)