Talk:David Ferrie

message: The section currently reads:
"The day the newspaper story first ran, Garrison aide Lou Ivon stated that Ferrie telephoned him to say: "You know what this news story does to me, don't you. I'm a dead man. From here on, believe me, I'm a dead man...."[37]"
It is completely unclear what news story is being referred to. Implicitly it is a story of Ferrie's death, but then we are told of Ferrie's responding to it, so safe to assume that was not its subject. I don't have a copy of the book handy, hopefully someone can fix this. Surely there should be at least another sentence to contextualize this claim, or the sentences should be removed.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.36.93 (talk) 09:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical / Logical Error in Death and Aftermath section

message: David William Ferrie was an unusual person, probably misunderstood by many people. I was always interested in history and US presidents, and this took me into an interest in JFK and his assassination. I gravitated to an interest in the New Orleans aspects and this led to David Ferrie. I tried to chronologize the printed info about him, but a lot of this was unreliable. With the intent of "getting the goods" on him, I started collecting all available documents about him, and contacting people who knew him. I am about halfway through a book on Ferrie and am also working on a film about him.
There are two ways to look at him. In the traditional view, he was a villain, a man with CIA and organized crime connections who manipulated Lee Harvey Oswald in some way, resulting in JFK's death. But from those who knew him (and from documents), a counter-history emerges, of a much more complex man who felt that a chance crossing of paths with Oswald in 1955 led to false stories about him. In my study, I consider evidence relating to both views.
What do you think about David Ferrie? I would love to hear from any who knew him. — 64.12.116.5 11:24, 7 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How did all this information get posted regarding Ferrie's possible involvement in the so-called conspiracy against JFK? This is ridiculous. There is no citation given. All info related to JFK should be removed until citation is given. Garrison was someone that can not be taken seriously since he has been discredited. Oliver Stone makes movies and admitst that this film was not a documentary and he played fast and loose with the facts. I request removal of this nonsense. Jtpaladin 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a 5-paragraph article in the Times-Picayune of 11/27/63 announcing that Ferrie and two other men (Patrick L. Martens and Roland Beauboeuf) were released from custody on 11/26 after being arrested on 11/25 and "held for investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service". The newspaper was unable to get any comment on the nature of the questioning, but I think it's safe to say that three days after the assassination, the FBI and Secret Service were primarily focused on that investigation. Csnizik (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No citation regarding JFK issues 

message: I have removed the anonymously added text, "Subsequent investigations have failed to link Ferrie to any direct involvement in the assassination or to an association with Oswald during his time in New Orleans" and added documentation of the investigative record of the Ferrie-Oswald connection. Joegoodfriend 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigations 

message: This section is not neutral unless it discusses Martin's history of mental illness and his retraction of his claims. Gamaliel (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it. What "retraction of his claims" are you referring to? Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking for a reference to it.  Even if my memory is faulty on that point, the article should discuss Martin's long history of mental illness, alcoholism (Garrison initially called him "an undependable drunk" before embracing his account), and unreliability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin never retracted his statements, but the history of mental illness, and alcoholism should be placed in this article in a sentence or two-- for balance. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with the editors. I'll take a stab at this and get back to you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, the tag disappeared. Care to put it back?Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: :Image:Ciravolo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ciravolo.jpg

message: See: image description page
Mtracy9 (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale provided for Image:Ciravolo.jpg

message: As Ferrie has no notability outside his involvement in the Shaw trial.  I suggest creating a new article called "Persons related to the Shaw trial" or something to that effect, and merging this article into it along with the ones on Russo, Bannister, Martin, etc.  Any opposition? Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a Trial of Clay Shaw article. I think most of the figures you mention can be covered there. This article is better separate I think. Ferrie does have some notability just for his Marcello ties. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well then, I'll leave this one alone.  But for size issues I will be taking out the Key Witnesses and Person section from the Trial article and creating an entirely separate article if I don't hear opposition in the next couple of days. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I think this is a good idea after all. I've been wanting to work Dean Andrews into an article for some time, but couldn't think of a good way to do it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidate Info 

message: I contest that the words written or spoken by Jim Garrison are not an acceptable source given the lies contained in On the Trail of the Assassins (See http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Only twice in this article is anything referenced specifically to Garrison. The first is his alleged conversation with Senator Long. I don't recall Long ever denying the conversation. The second is about Banister's activities. Since no one doubts that Guy Banister was assisting anti-Castro Cubans in running guns to Cuba, what's your point? And by the way, why do you refuse to sign your posts? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Garrison? 

message: I can't believe there is no mention about the book Mafia Kingfish, Ferrie is probably mentioned on at least 100 pages. He set Oswald up as the patsy for the JFK murder while working with Carlos Marcello.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.222.8 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the hundreds pro-conspiracy books mentioning Ferrie, Mafia Kingfish is a small fish in a big pond. Is there a unique point in the book that needs to be made? Location (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mafia Kingfish 

message: This article uses Garrison's book On the Train of the Assassins and his Playboy interview as sources.  Garrison is absurdly unreliable on this case.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie.htm
Note that latter-day Garrison supporters have pretty much tried to sanitize (by failing to discuss it) a lot of wild and wacky notions that Garrison had.  But those notions reflect on his credibility:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon2.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon3.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon4.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimloon5.htm
Nothing should be stated as a fact in the article unless a source much more reliable than Garrison confirms it.
John McAdams
:Garrison is used as a citation five times in the article. 2 of those 5 references also cite other sources. I don't think any of the text associated with these five references is considered controversial in terms of the facts. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that you should be using Warren Commission apologist John McAdam's website as a source for claiming that Garrison is unreliable, when Wiki policy prohibits using a web site [remove per BLP] as a reliable source. BrandonTR (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Brandon, I believe this post was started by the actual John McAdams himself. Far out eh? Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy does prohibit using Wikipedia pages as a forum for name-calling directed at living individuals.  You've been warned about this many times.  Gamaliel (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is name calling? I'm just expressing an opinion. As for the post being started by John McAdams, all I can say is, "that figures." I guess McAdams needs to be informed that his website is not considered a reliable source, as per Wikipedia policy. BrandonTR (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Garrison as Source 

message: Jim Marrs is a WP:FRINGE source, widely known as one who embraces any number of fringe theories on Bigfoot, 9/11, UFOs, etc.   "The mainstream media has indeed tended to dismiss Marrs out of hand." (Contemporary Authors Online. Detroit: Gale, 2008)  Until this author is demonstrated to have met WP:RS criteria and to not violate FRINGE criteria, I will be removing citations of him from the article.  Traditionally on Wikipedia, the onus is on those who wish to add information to demonstrate its acceptability under Wikipedia policy.  Gamaliel (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While Jim Marrs may have embraced what some might consider fringe theories on certain subjects, it does not logically follow that what Marrs has written on the JFK assassination is fringe. BrandonTR (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but it does mean that he has a significant burden to overcome to be considered a reliable source in one particular area since he is in general such an unreliable and fringe source by Wikipedia standards.  Gamaliel (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden is on you to show that Marrs is an unreliable source regarding the JFK assassination, since you are the one making the claim. BrandonTR (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BURDEN: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".  Gamaliel (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot to mention the 2nd clause of the Wiki sentence: "... and [the burden of evidence] is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." BrandonTR (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

text: and where is your reliable source demonstrating that Marrs meets RS criteria? Gamaliel (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tough call for me. On the one hand, he's clearly among those "researchers" who embrace every fringe theory that comes down the road. However, I'm not aware that Marrs has said anything about the JFK assassination that's considered so outlandish by the research community that he can definitely be called unreliable on the subject. But I think this is easily solved - just use other sources for the same text. David Ferrie's suicide note is quoted many other places. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree.  There are abundant reliable sources on the JFK assassination, and there's nothing essential in Marrs' account that requires we cite an unreliable work. There's no reason we should waste any further time on this matter.  Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Marrs 

message: Regardless of Wikipedia guidelines, the fact is that this article is based almost entirely on the HSCA documents.  That is a very one-sided presentation of events.  There is a voluminous literature out there concerning the JFK assassination, including much information on David Ferrie.  Some of it is wacky, some delusional, but also much of it is objective, intelligent discussion, even if at times it is at odds with the HSCA findings.  Readers of an encyclopedia deserve to see all sides of an issue of this importance.  For example, nowhere in this article is mention made of the fact that David Ferrie was a competent classical pianist, whose concerts were well received.  This is important, because it provides insight into his character, intelligence, and talent.  We should not gloss over the fact that he "got a job with Eastern Airlines," as if he landed a menial position changing tires at Goodyear.  In fact, he was a Lockheed Constellation Captain, a remarkable achievement in aviation.  The Constellation had four Wright 3350 engines, the most complex piston engines ever in mass production.  The Constellation cockpit had hundreds of gauges, instruments, levers, switches, etc. with which the pilot had to be completely familiar, as well as being familiar with all the complex aircraft systems: hydraulic, electrical, pneumatic, etc.  Not to mention the raw piloting talent required just to handle the airliner in all phases of flight.  David Ferrie received excellent appraisals for his abilities, he was fired because in those years, you could not be publically gay.  
No mention is made also of his college degree or his PhD in psychology, although the latter was obtained from a non-accredited institution in Italy.  Nevertheless, interesting information which serves to give a fuller portrait of the man.
Someone who has the time should delve deeper into this most fascinating of all characters in the JFK saga and revise this article.98.183.30.108 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'll be looking forward to your edits. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The article contains the following statement cited to Anthony Summers's book Not in Your Lifetime:
:In 1978, William Gaudet, a 20-year CIA informant who had worked out of an office at the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, told investigator Anthony Summers that Ferrie "was with Oswald," although Gaudet did not state where or when, or whether he knew this directly or by hearsay. Gaudet also said, "Another vital person is Sergio Arcacha Smith. I know he knew Oswald and knows more about the Kennedy affair than he ever admitted."
Should the above statement be included in the article? 05:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about the inclusion of allegations made by William Gaudet 

message: The article previously included the statement that Joe Pesci's film portrayal of David Ferrie was 'critically acclaimed' and cited Daniel Hopsicker's Mad Cow Morning News website to support this. Hopsicker's website is emphatically not a reliable source, and Hopsicker is not any kind of film critic. I have removed the link. Rgr09 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to Hopsicker website