Talk:Jim Garrison

message: The second paragraph states "Garrison remains a controversial figure...". However the following sentences of the same paragraph are not related to Garrison but to the JFK Trial/Case: "...Opinions differ as to whether he uncovered a conspiracy behind the John F. Kennedy assassination, but was blocked from successful prosecution by a federal government cover-up, whether he bungled his chance to uncover a conspiracy, or whether the entire case was an unproductive waste of resources."
Hence, the concept of a Garrison as a "controversial figure" is explained from the JFK assassination perspective.
In this context, Garrison is not a controversial figure... the "JFK assassination" certainly is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.252.132 (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Garrison remains a controversial figure." 

message: I have read allegations that Garrison was involved in some sort of sexual misconduct involving young boys at his athletic club. I haven't looked much into this, but I was wondering if there was any sort of consensus as to the validity of these allegations, and whether or not they should be included in the article. Lonenut2000 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Abuse Allegations

message: hi :) 
I recently undid your edit where you removed some well sourced content. The content is sort of related/important to the article, so i had to put it back.
You had done a similar removal of content on March 27th. At that time, you removed the same content, along with some other content. The other content was definitely uncyclopaedic and not related to the topic, so i didnt add it back, but i did add the papers statement.
If you think it should be deleted from the article, then kindly post adequate reasoning on the talkpage. Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: please take a look at the page's history carefully. I didnt removed the content, i added it back. But when you reverted my edit, you removed the content. In your own words: You're either trolling or confused, let's hope it's the latter... —usernamekiran (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. Somehow I transposed the edits. Earl of Arundel (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *  are we friends? You didnt say sorry :-/ —usernamekiran (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 release of personal documents 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Garrison. 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/20080205032009/http://www.redshift.com/~damason/lhreport/articles/perry.html to http://www.redshift.com/~damason/lhreport/articles/perry.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830040130/http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Whitmey/Gervais.html to http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Whitmey/Gervais.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) 12:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first sentence of the Legacy section states: "Political analyst and conspiracy believer Carl Oglesby was quoted as saying, "... I have done a study of Garrison: I come out of it thinking that he is one of the really first-rate class-act heroes of this whole ugly story [the killing of John F. Kennedy and subsequent investigation]." That material is cited to Interview with Carl Oglesby. JFK: The Question of Conspiracy, Documentary. Dir. & Writ. Danny Schechter, Dir. Barbara Kopple (Regency Enterprises, Le Studio Canal, & Alcor Films: A Global Vision Picture, 1992) and a YouTube version of it can be found here. While I think the Legacy section does need some balance from Garrison's supporters, that content needs to come from reliable secondary sources and I'm not convinced that a video put out by conspiracy theorists citing one conspiracy theorist praising another conspiracy theorist qualifies. Should this remain in the article, removed, or taken to WP:RSN for additional opinions? Thanks! -Location (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources