Talk:Carl Weiss

message: Weiss may have been a member of a Kiwanis Club, and the Club was a member of Kiwanis International, but neither Weiss nor any other individual could have been a member of Kiwanis International.Alexander Springstea (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Kiwanis International

message: According to the article on Huey Long, "Long's bodyguards returned fire, hitting Weiss 30 times and killing him." In this article it states "Weiss was hit with sixty-two bullets and died at the scene." Neither number is cited with any source. Which is it? Himeyuri (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: How Many Times Was This Man Shot?

message: Ok ok, we need the question addressed-- was he Jewish or part Jewish?. Yes, yes-- Catholic High School, Catholic Burial. But was he half Jewish, quarter Jewish? Is it so terrible to say he looked quite Jewish? (see here).
Why my interest ? Well I happen to be both Jewish and Arab (among other things) and, yes, I've been at war with myself basically from adolescence on. So I'm just almost automatically interested in partial Jews in America... Note: I love discussing race and ethnicity, unlike anyone I know. I believe race/ethnicity determines much individual behavior, no matter how much well-meaning liberals wish it were otherwise (I salute them, really I do-- but truth comes first)... So was he part Jewish? JDG 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 12/10/1997 Washington Post article "An Unusual Southern Legacy" says he was Jewish. Heathcliff (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok 2601:646:8B00:4BF0:95E3:2557:7C2D:BFC7 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: The Question

message: He was not. Ethnic Germans planted early on in the south. His middle name was Austin, about as common as a Jew named Keith. It is doubtfull that the Pavey family would have accepted his being Jewish. Kaltenborn
:: No, mister.  The Pavey family was more concerned if he was rich or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.184.225 (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: The opening sentence identifies him as the "fall guy", and he is referenced explicitly as "framed" later on. Unless there is some justification for this, I believe this is a case of bias making it through, since the rest of the article never positively identifies him as framed or as a scapegoat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.53.236 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Framed? 

message: Under "Family denials", the article states: "Weiss claims without evidence that the insurance company reported that Long's death was "accidental." ".
The report here was reputedly prepared by one of the insurance company's investigators: 
If it's genuine, would that not be the evidence for Weiss' claim? --Chris Keating (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: the report was prepared by someone who was not there and who does not claim to have interviewed any witnesses. He had not read the elaborate  testimony the witnesses  gave. It cites "various sources" --and is full of anti-Long rumors and gossip on all sorts of unrelated issues of the sort that circulated wildly at the time. (the gossip mostly is about the reasons Dr Weiss had to kill Long. But the investigator gets those wrong, eg the Pavy family never heard of the allegation that Long said Dr Pavy had black blood--Williams p 870.) the  In any case this is a controversial "primary source" of the sort that Wikipedia warns against. Our article is based on much more advanced scholarship (by people like T Harry Williams).  Rjensen (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Long listed by insurance company as "accidental"? 

message: The certainty with which this article and the article on Long endorse Weiss' conviction is simply not an option the historical record can deliver.
Nor is any certainty contained in the quotation: "no one had taken it very seriously, for unless all the witnesses to the event were lying or mistaken...." The author is merely citing a consensus he found and pointing to everyone's reliance on the accuracy of witnesses, a subject he raises because it is the obvious contingency on which Dr. Weiss' posthumous conviction by the press and a hostile state government rests. 
There actually is a high degree of reasonable doubt about the motives of witness and about the actual events, and that fact should not be omitted.
As a matter of pure form, the assertion that historians all agree about some event doesn't fit the intellectual enterprise that is historiography.
Thus the opening sentence of this article is inaccurate. The article has a tone of railroading Dr. Weiss throughout, making the suspicion that he really was railroaded seem credible. Macdust (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: we let the reliable secondary sources make the historical decisions. Wikipedia simply reports them. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: here at Wikipedia we start with the reliable secondary sources.  Which are the ones you are using? Rjensen (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable claim of certainty. 

message: The use of the word "implicated" in the article introduction seems odd to me. For me the word refers to an indirect or minor role in a crime. I am not going into the rabbit hole of whether he was guilty or not. He is known as the person who is generally thought to be the killer. Maybe words like "accused" or "blamed" might be used instead.
--Óli Gneisti (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implicated? 

message: ‘theories have arisen that Weiss did not actually murder Senator Long’.
Strictly speaking, such are not ‘theories’. Such are ‘hypotheses’. Are there truly more than one? They amount to no more than ex-post facto suggestions, in any case. Even merely opinions, and as such do not merit the word ‘theory’. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:E6:962C:81C1:843D (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories ?