Talk:George de Mohrenschildt

message: Upon receiving notice to appear before Congress, George de Mohrenschildt suddenly decided it was a good idea to stick a shotgun in his mouth. For some strange reason, among his personal effects he had the telephone number of George Herbert Walker Bush, then Director of the CIA, and later President of the United States. But then again doesn't everyone have the phone number to the Director of the CIA in his/her pocket?—172.169.7.101 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in the answer, but you know we went to all-digit dialing most places in the late 1960's, so the number probably (almost certainly) dates from before that, to the time when GHW Bush owned the oil company that DeM worked for, and none of this has anything to do with what Bush was doing at the CIA in 1977 (long after phone numbers looked like that) in 1977. Pretty thin stuff for conspiracy. DeM had the name of his boss, in old style, and in such a way he didn't even have to remember the first two digits, which would of course have been some alphabetical mnemonic for that section of Texas. Find me that 2-letter alphabet mnemonic, add the 4 to it, and see if the complete 7-digit phone number matches on Bush's old company or home phone. But if it does, so what? SBHarris 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, so? The man was a gregarious petroleum geologist and businessman who knew everybody (including Jackie Bouvier Kennedy's family when she was s pre-teen). And had every reason to know the Texas oil community as well as he could when he worked there, CIA or no CIA. Read his long autobio which he gave in testamony in the referenced notes to the Warren Commission. You'll know the man much better afterwards. SBHarris 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other side of this is that Charles J. Guiteau and Leon Frank Czolgosz acted alone, so on the basis of those odds, it's 2 to 1 in favor of lone assassins when you get to JFK.  Way too much has been made to people having "links" to the "intelligence community" vs. (put it another way) just talking to the CIA (who gather information on foreign countries sometimes in the most efficient way, by simply debriefing people who've been there, and come home). Bush founded an oil company with a former CIA officer who still had CIA contacts, for sure. But so what? A lot of what the CIA does, perhaps most of what it does, is not James Bond stuff. It's strictly passive. Yeah it does a lot of time gathering "intelligence" about other countries. That means finding out about them. It all sounds so nefarious until you consider the alternative. Do you want the US government to go around in total ignorance of what everybody else in the world is doing? One man's intelligence gathering is another man's keeping informed. As Martha Stewart would say: "It's a good thing." SBHarris 04:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The CIA doesn't operate domestically. That's the FBI you're thinking of. And for the record, it was the FBI that de Mohrenschildt roundly hated, and said so at every opportunity. SBHarris 04:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A Wikipedia discussion page is not supposed to be a bulletin board for debate about the topic. It is supposed to discuss the article itself. To answer the question above, George de Mohrenschildt's step-nephew was the roommate of George H.W. Bush at Phillips Academy in the early 1940s.—Walloon (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: George H.W. Bush

message: "Young George traveled around Europe and later claimed he was part of a pro-Nazi plot to kill Joseph Stalin.[citation needed]"
Anyone know where the heck this info came from?? It sounds like BS, but I'd like to know if it is legit.—Aliveboy 11:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has to be false and provably so, since DeM (as he says in his WC testamony, which is referenced) was in Texas working for Humble Oil by 1939, before Stalin and Hitler invaded Poland (DeM got papers to be mobilized in the Polish army in 1939, but couldn't make it back to Europe from the US, or so he said). I'll remove it and see if anybody has a source or sticks up for it. As for the Nazis, they had signed the non-aggresson pact with Stalin and were best buds in Sept 1939 when they were carving up Poland. And of course before Hitler invaded the USSR in June, 1941. After that, there might have been a Nazi plot against Stalin but by time DeM was still in the US. His sympathies were with the Poles, never for a moment with the Nazis or Hitler, who he hated for having invaded Poland. SBHarris 03:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro-Nazi plot to kill Joseph Stalin.[citation needed] 

message: We need a photo of the man. Didn't the Warren Commission publish one? SBHarris 02:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.—Walloon (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of the man? 

message: On http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/ you see photos of the dead Mr. de Mohrenschildt and you don't see any exit wound at his head. This showes, that he did not shoot himself into the mouth. Many witnesses in the JFK-murder-case were murdered as well, which was ruled as suicide by officials as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.7.234.253 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are hundreds of photos on that site. Where is a photo of the dead de Mohrenschildt? SBHarris 22:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is. Warning:graphic! http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=28&pos=32 Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting, but still proves little. Kurt Kobain used a shotgun in the mouth and had no exit wound. It happens. I see a huge amount of blood and suspect that the man's entire face is gone. That's also a shotgun suicide syndrome, where somebody puts the weapon under the chin and removes their entire face, but the back of the head remains intact. A few of these people even live for a while (yes, that's horrible). SBHarris 23:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was not suicide! 

message: I added the tags to the article since I am not sure that article subject has sufficient notability outside of his alleged relationship with Oswald to warrant his own bio. Further the article seems to use a significant amount of primary sourses which may be original research. I suggest this article could be merged with the List of people involved in the trial of Clay Shaw or the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote keep. The article gets 1500 page view a month, which is not insignificant (it's about a quarter what Clay Shaw gets). As for "original research" because based on a primary source (the man's autobiography) how is that "original research"? This is the old problem of Wikipedia which nobody dares face, which is that some synthesis of chosen bits of material is bound to be done by the article writer, at some point. It doesn't matter if I select bits of the autobiography and sew them together, or if I go to various secondary sources which mention him, and select bits of them, and sew them together. In both cases there is far more material available than I'm going to use here, so I have to decide on my own which is interesting and encyclopedic, and which is not. You cannot get away from that no matter what you do. If I did NOT do that, but instead employed no original thought in my selection of material and presentation of it, I would have to use an entire block of material from a single source. And that would likely be plagarism. SBHarris 07:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or indeed a copyright violation. Well argued User:Sbharris. I vote keep too. Testbed (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly there is interest in the topic and likewise the article subject, but that is not the question raised, and let me state preemptively that I am NOT seeking to erase de Mohrenschildt from Wikipedia. However, WP:BIO states that among the invalid criteria for a biography is [t]hat person A has a relationship with well-known person B ... [said] relationship is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). However, person A may be included in the related article on B. I think this may apply here. As for the original research part of this, as someone who's created a few articles here I fully understand the conundrum having to rely on third party bits of sourcing to somehow make a cohesive whole and that it can be impossible for some synthesis of sourcing to creep into the article. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 16:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability and Original Research concerns 

message: An image used in this article, File:JFKdemohrenschildt2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:JFKdemohrenschildt2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Lho-133A.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I said this on my talk page, what follows is an updated version in case no one has seen it.
I did not do the edit to mean that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, that Oswald was or was not the shooter, that the shots came from more than one gun, or that they came from the front or the back.
While it is true that many people claim there is enough evidence that Oswald did shoot Kenendy and while this is the iconic image which has remained of Oswald, that what the Lone gunman theory is...... a theory.
In reality Oswald has NEVER been confirmed to be the murderer of Kenendy, nor has he EVER been confirmed to be the murderer of Tippit. WC defenders maintain that the case against Oswald is airtight, and that were he to stand trial today he would be found guilty of the assassination.
Critics of the WC, on the other hand, assert that Oswald was framed, that the case against him is flawed at almost every point, and that an impartial jury would acquit him in a trial where the normal legal standards of evidence were applied. In their view, not only is there far more than a reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt, but the available evidence shows he did not shoot the President. Most WC critics also believe that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy.
George De Mohrenschildt (9 H 255) testified that Oswald was an admirer of President Kennedy and had praised him, considered Oswald a man "with no hatred in him."
So why is it not allowed to put alleged on here? Since Oswald denied killing anyone and since there is still theroies on the Assassination of JFK, I don't see why it couldn't translate to this article.
I'd highly recommend PRESUMED GUILTY, How and why the Warren Commission framed Lee Harvey Oswald(1976) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.156.88 (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, don't forget to weigh in also on John Wilkes Booth, alleged assassin of President Abraham Lincoln. SBHarris 23:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is a long-term POV pusher on Kennedy-related articles. I block the IP as it shows up, invariably from the same rather large range and ISP. Acroterion (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALLEGED Assassin 

message: ​
I'd like to request all mentioning of the sovereign state of the Netherlands as "Holland" be changed into it's proper name of "The Netherlands". For it is an improper and misleading term, a case of pars pro toto (a part taken for the hole); in which it is similar to using the term 'Russia' to denote the whole of the former Soviet Union, or using the term 'England' to refer to all of the United Kingdom, two other common cases of pars pro toto. Thank you. Renierius (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. I don't think we should make a change like this without consensus on the idea.   RudolfRed (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that case, does anyone perhaps oppose this correction?  Renierius (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning of Holland, pars pro toto. 

message: >>Credible evidence has emerged that establishes that de Mohrenschildt was in the employ of the CIA, that he managed Oswald under the agency's direction. In contradiction to Vincent Bugliosi, Esq., there is loads of evidence that George de Mohenschildt was well connected to CIA Director Allen Dulles.<<
Not only is there nothing encyclopedic about "loads of evidence", we are not given any the so called "credible evidence" that de Mohrenschildt was in the employ of the CIA, let alone that he "managed Oswald under the agency's direction." This is a new low for you, BrandonTR. There's nothing sinister about being employed by the CIA (the CIA employs 20,000 people), but do we have a W-2 form, even? SBHarris 06:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Brandon was restoring material I removed that was added to the article by User:99.30.227.31.  Or that IP address is Brandon, I have no idea.  That material is cited to the work of Bruce Campbell Adamson, a self-published author who appears to have no credentials as a historian.  This obviously doesn't meet RS criteria,  but Brandon insists on wasting our time yet again, forcing us to explain once more the basic rules of Wikipedia to him until he gives up and moves on to the next way he finds to waste our time. Gamaliel (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loads of evidence? 

message: I have removed the following material cited to Douglass p.169:
:"On October 23, 1964, Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin received a letter from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, warning him not to release the FBI's "reports and memoranda dealing with Michael and Ruth Paine and George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt ... Making the contents available to the public could cause serious repercussions to the commission."
That is an accurate portrayal of what Douglas states on p.169:
:"FBI director J. Edgar Hoover apparently did notice, however, that there was a de Mohrenschildt-Paine parallel of a classified nature whose public revelation could threaten the credibility of the Warren Commission. Hoover wrote a letter to head Warren Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin on October 23, 1964, urging him not to release certain FBI 'reports and memoranda dealing with Michael and Ruth Paine and George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt.' Hoover warned Rankin: 'Making the contents of such documents available to the public could cause serious repercussions to the Commission.'"
Typical of the work of Douglas (and other CTs who cite this passage), the comments are taken out of context to suggest that Hoover was trying to cover-up information that would threaten the credibility of the Warren Commission and its findings. In fuller context, the following is what Hoover wrote to Rankin:
:"However, I again wish to call your attention to the fact that many of our reports in the assassination case, the Lee Harvey Oswald case, and related inquires contain considerable information of a highly personal nature which was furnished by our Agents during the investigation of those cases. I particularly desire to point out those reports and memoranda dealing with Michael and Ruth Paine and Georege and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt and the personal lives of those people. Making the contents of such documents available to the public could cause serious repercussions to the Commission."
...and in the same letter referring to an earlier discussion...
:"Both Mr. Stern and Mr. Williams at that time concluded that if the Commission publicized such reports in their entirety, the Commission will be criticized for making public information concerning innocent persons."
Wikipedia should not be inserting material from fringe sources that distort context to give the appearance that Hoover's letter was a nefarious part of a cover-up. -Location (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter from Hoover to Rankin

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George de Mohrenschildt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150311051029/http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/ to http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/reporters-tape-exposes-bill-oreillys-jfk-fib/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George de Mohrenschildt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028101548/http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/demlee.html to http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/demlee.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George de Mohrenschildt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141028095659/http://book-old.ru/BookLibrary/22001-Pam.-kn.-Minskoy-gub/1916.-Pamyatnaya-knizhka-Minskoy-gubernii-na-1917-god.html to http://book-old.ru/BookLibrary/22001-Pam.-kn.-Minskoy-gub/1916.-Pamyatnaya-knizhka-Minskoy-gubernii-na-1917-god.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified