Talk:James Files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Files Photo By Oswald? 2 Notice of Deletion 3 | 4 Notice of accusation 5 Bias 6 Bias

[edit] Files Photo By Oswald?

Interesting article that does what you suggest it does - present CLAIMS.

However - what possible authentication is there for the photo allegedly taken by Oswald of Files in the Dallas motel? Can an irrefutable chain of evidence create such a link? No doubt it is Files where he claims to be, but the photographer could have been anyone. What ties it to Oswald?Sensei48 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)sensei48

Well....That photo is supposed to be part of a set taken by Oswald. Unfortunately, just the one has been available publicly. Until we see whats available in the other pictures (from the SAME ROLL OF FILM mind you), there really is no way to tell who took it. Goldwings 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of Deletion

Well, its looking like no one wants this article on Wikipedia anymore. So, I'm going to keep the article up until May 1st 2007, after which time I will permanantly delete and redirect to Kennedy Assassination theories. If Mr Wim Dankbaar, or anyone else wishes to step up and take over afterwards, be my guest. Until then, this is your friendly neighborhood author....signing off ;-) Goldwings 22:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, after thinking it over...I've decided NOT to delete this page. I will simply no longer monitor it, nor edit it. It's now wide open for anyone who wishes to take over, can now edit, add, and delete as they please! Goldwings 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] |

I've tagged this with a disputed-neutrality tag, because I don't think it gives a particularly accurate view of how people see Files and his testimony. Certainly many people believe him, but the article presents it as if it's universally believed, while it appears to be a minority view---no official government body does, of course, and even among "alternative theories" explanations, the view that Files killed Kennedy is a minority. --Delirium 06:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You do have a point, but there are some things I would like to point out. You will find, throughout the article, that I've put "Files claims...." or "Files states...." before a statement, to prevent any arguments about the point of view. This tells the readers that those are his claims, and his claims only. That does not mean that it's 100% true. If I had a time machine to go back and see those events, then we could say its 100% true or false. Another thing I will point out, is that I've included links to pages that show the opposing arguments. Some opposing arguments are completely made up (such as Files was in Chicago that day, or the twin brother story), and it would be criminal of me to leave those in as if they are fact. However, there is always room for improvement. I'm going to leave the tag up for now, and I'll refine the article in a more neutral manner later tonight. Goldwings 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've looked over the article 3 times. I don't know where to make a more neutral stance. As far as I can tell, I've put "According to..." or "Files states...." and references to back it up in every section. Could you point out to me where there is a dispute over neutrality? One thing I would like to make clear is...I do not care how people see Files and his testimony. Some people may think he's an honest John, and some may think he's the biggest jerk they've ever known. I'm not trying to please the people (majority or minority), I've put the article together as a collection of statements and facts, and any areas of controversy. If it happened to look like I'm leaning one way or another, thats a result of the evidence, I do not attach my opinions. I'd also like to know where the evidence is that you came to the following conclusions: "the article presents it as if it's universally believed" & "the view that Files killed Kennedy is a minority." I'll keep the tag up a little while longer. Goldwings 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What does "bit the shell casing" mean? Fitzaubrey 08:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of accusation

Recently, this artice has come under fire accusing me of: Bias, no mainstream sources, and the fact that this is conspiracy nonsense. I am going to make several things crystal clear:

1. This article is NOT intended to please the anti-conspiracy crowd, nor is it intended to please the majority or minority of JFK researchers. I could care less what the majority or minority thinks of James Files.

2. The purpose of this article is intended for those who are dilligently and legitimately researching the JFK assassination, and what to know what Files "claims" (theres that word again) to have said or done, such as for a school project. In no way are any of his claims presented as 100% fact. The only way to know Files story is by his claims. Who else am I going to ask,...his mother?

3. I am NOT going to shadow the article with doubt, or make speculative claims that his story is not accepted by the majority or whatever, because I believe that would be dishonest for the readers.

4. There are very few sources about James Files available on Google. That is why it appears that there are very few sources, because thats all I have to work with.

5. Last but not least, I am NOT going to be deleting this article, or moving it around to a conspiracy theory topic. There is already a small paragraph in Kennedy assassination theories about his claim. This article is a supplement to his claim, by letting readers know a little bit about him as a "subject" (kind of like a mini-biography).

6. If anyone has any constructive critiism, I am keeping an open ear and willing to listen. However, if all you intend to do is slander and label the article as conspiracy guff, you will be laughed at and ignored.

7. Please direct all disputes here to the discussion page. Thats what it's here for. Goldwings 19:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article is biased since it doesn't mention the biggest problem (and only speaks of "support) with the subject's confession - the headshot came from behind. GreatGatsby 01:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think that is fair to recieve mention. I never thought I would be getting an intelligent response, but here it is....the first one! Before I do a major edit, go ahead and list any more "legitimate" problems you have. Keep in mind, I WILL NOT be shadowing this bio with doubt. So, if that is your intent, save your breath. Goldwings 00:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be put under doubt? It's quite obvious this man has made this "confession" to gain fame. The type of projectile he describes wouldn't have worked, and no shots came form the knoll (none of the traejctory lines up). His whole story is if Oswald didn't get the kill shot the first time he was to end it. But both shots that hit Kennedy came from behind, and the knoll was to his side when the headshot came. GreatGatsby 00:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Under the section regarding Files' military service, there is discussion of Files' apparently confused military record, referencing the Office of Strategic Services, which was obsolete at the time Files claims he served, makes no references at all to sources for these claims and includes the following line:

"Unfortunately this affects almost all the officers that participated in the Kennedy Assassination serving under Jack M Oliphant."

This statement seems to be by fiat, supporting the notion of participation by the intelligence community in assassinating JFK, an assertion that has thus far, little demonstrated credibility.

Its has far more credibility than the warren report, discredited by the house committee, who "officially" supported the second shooter, i.e. conspiracy, actuality. Apparently the intelligence "community" is no. one prime suspect for the jfk assassination, as of course they are in every other major or not so major dirty deed committed from time immemorial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.254.51.226 (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)