Wikipedia these days

[Richard Coleman]

As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

[Guest Robert Morrow]

As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

Wikipedia has absolutely no credibility when it comes to the JFK assassination. The most knowledgeable people in that field are banned from posting there. Wiki is a sick joke.

[John Simkin]

As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

Thank you for posting this excellent article about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

[Greg Parker]

As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

Thank you for posting this excellent article about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

John,

Wiki bio gives a balanced array of opinion on "Best Evidence".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lifton

Spartacus bio gives a one-sided view of that book - and (imo) bizarrely cites a Lifton piece on Garrison as a primary source for a bio on Lifton. And follows that "primary source" up with another very odd choice - the self-serving blurb from "Best Evidence".

So while both fail to give a balanced view of the man - let alone delve into his sub-ethical dealings with others in this "community", at least the book gets some semblance of balanced treatment from wiki. I'm sorry to say that the Spartacus entry reads like a paid ad.

Until you make the choice to fix those bios, criticising wiki looks a bit like the pot and kettle and while it may have it's share of problems with editors, you have yours with moderators. Neither you nor wiki however, are inclined to heed such criticism.

For myself, I believe both you and wiki have built something worthwhile, flawed as it is.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

Thank you for posting this excellent article about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

John,

Wiki bio gives a balanced array of opinion on "Best Evidence".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lifton

Spartacus bio gives a one-sided view of that book - and (imo) bizarrely cites a Lifton piece on Garrison as a primary source for a bio on Lifton. And follows that "primary source" up with another very odd choice - the self-serving blurb from "Best Evidence".

So while both fail to give a balanced view of the man - let alone delve into his sub-ethical dealings with others in this "community", at least the book gets some semblance of balanced treatment from wiki. I'm sorry to say that the Spartacus entry reads like a paid ad.

Until you make the choice to fix those bios, criticising wiki looks a bit like the pot and kettle and while it may have it's share of problems with editors, you have yours with moderators. Neither you nor wiki however, are inclined to heed such criticism.

For myself, I believe both you and wiki have built something worthwhile, flawed as it is.

Greg Parker, if you don't like David Lifton, why don't you write an extended blog post on that, go into great detail into every failing or inaccuracy of David Lifton, then post the web link where we can read it?

[Greg Parker]

As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

Thank you for posting this excellent article about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

John,

Wiki bio gives a balanced array of opinion on "Best Evidence".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lifton

Spartacus bio gives a one-sided view of that book - and (imo) bizarrely cites a Lifton piece on Garrison as a primary source for a bio on Lifton. And follows that "primary source" up with another very odd choice - the self-serving blurb from "Best Evidence".

So while both fail to give a balanced view of the man - let alone delve into his sub-ethical dealings with others in this "community", at least the book gets some semblance of balanced treatment from wiki. I'm sorry to say that the Spartacus entry reads like a paid ad.

Until you make the choice to fix those bios, criticising wiki looks a bit like the pot and kettle and while it may have it's share of problems with editors, you have yours with moderators. Neither you nor wiki however, are inclined to heed such criticism.

For myself, I believe both you and wiki have built something worthwhile, flawed as it is.

Greg Parker, if you don't like David Lifton, why don't you write an extended blog post on that, go into great detail into every failing or inaccuracy of David Lifton, then post the web link where we can read it?

Say, there's a good idea! Get one person to write a bio about another person that they dislike! Maybe we could get someone who dislikes JFK to write a "tell-all" book about him? Nah... it would never work. Everyone with a lick of sense would see straight through it...

Actually, I do believe I could write a fair and balanced bio about Lifton - but I'm not the one criticising wiki for lack of balance.

While on the subject of bios... my offer is still open for you to help me with the book on the heads of the JBS and NRA. I could really use someone with your turn of phrase on all that "promiscuous" stuff that circulates about them and which I assume must be true.

[Greg Parker]

But as far as the assassinations go, its just more of the MSM.

Agreed, Jim, and no doubt the rest of your post was accurate, as well. In response...

Wikipedia acts no differently than any other encyclopaedia. To get it to reflect what we think it should, we have to have the official history overturned.

Here is the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry for Oswald.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/434542/Lee-Harvey-Oswald

Here is wikis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald

There is little difference between them, yet I hear no one complain about Britannica.

I suspect if the assassination were to be investigated by say, a Royal Commission chaired in Australia right now, at worst, it would return an Open Finding and at best, that persons unknown, planned and executed a plot to assassinate the president and which included the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald. That then, is what would be reflected in all encyclopaedia (except maybe Conservapedia which is itself a marvel of modern mind engineering!).

I have moved the investigative setting to Oz simply to avoid debate over the chances of reopening the case in the US - let alone getting something other than another sham inquiry.

The original point I made in this thread meanwhile remains: this site complaining about wikipedia is pot and kettle stuff given the powderpuff bios found here of some authors. Lifton is not the sole example.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Greg Parker

[John Simkin]

As I'm sure most of you know, Wikipedia's treatment of JFK has been pretty thoroughly dissected (autopsied might be a better term) at CTKA. I thought a current discussion of Wiki's unreliability might be of some interest although not specifically about JFK.

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/29/wikipedias_shame/

Thank you for posting this excellent article about the dangers of relying on Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

John,

Wiki bio gives a balanced array of opinion on "Best Evidence".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lifton

Spartacus bio gives a one-sided view of that book - and (imo) bizarrely cites a Lifton piece on Garrison as a primary source for a bio on Lifton. And follows that "primary source" up with another very odd choice - the self-serving blurb from "Best Evidence".

So while both fail to give a balanced view of the man - let alone delve into his sub-ethical dealings with others in this "community", at least the book gets some semblance of balanced treatment from wiki. I'm sorry to say that the Spartacus entry reads like a paid ad.

Until you make the choice to fix those bios, criticising wiki looks a bit like the pot and kettle and while it may have it's share of problems with editors, you have yours with moderators. Neither you nor wiki however, are inclined to heed such criticism.

For myself, I believe both you and wiki have built something worthwhile, flawed as it is.

You have missed the point of the article. The reason that history departments in schools and universities do not allow their students to use Wikipedia as a “source” is not because it is inaccurate on occasions, but because we do not know who produced the article. To an historian this is vitally important. We need to ask questions about the person who produced the source. This is what you have done with your comments about my page on David Lifton. You know from past experience that I consider David a good source of information on the JFK assassination. You can then use this information to question my interpretation of my biography of him. In the same way that I can use the knowledge that you have had a long-running dispute with Lifton and that might influence your comments on him. Readers can also use the knowledge that you have criticised me in the past on this forum about my interpretation of different aspects of the JFK case.

Also, because you know who the author of the Spartacus Educational, you can contact me about factual mistakes on my website. You have yourself done this in the past and when you show me that it is a factual inaccuracy rather than a different interpretation of the evidence, I have corrected it. Virtually everyday I get emails from people about changes they want on my pages. Often they are related to the person concerned and concerns family details. Sometimes it is from people who are experts on the subject. If it concerns factual inaccuracy I make a correction. Wikipedia on the other hand allows in theory anyone to correct entries. In reality, very few people are allowed to correct entries. Controversial subjects are especially well protected by gatekeepers.

Writing history is about interpreting the evidence. It is also about selecting the evidence to interpret. For example, recently I criticised the Wikipedia entry for Billie Sol Estes. Not because it included any false information but because it did not include information that showed the importance of his case against Lyndon Baines Johnson. This becomes a real problem when nearly all the newspaper obituaries relied so heavily on the Wikipedia entry and did not consider the appropriate evidence.

There are several problems with Wikipedia. The most important point is that it suggests that it is possible to produce objective history. Jimmy Wales is actually on record as saying this. Secondly, it always appears first on Google searches for any subject you search for. Even when the entry is only a couple of lines, it appears above other more detailed sources of information. As most people have not studied history to a high level, they are extremely vulnerable to the idea that this information is reliable.

[Greg Parker]

You have missed the point of the article. The reason that history departments in schools and universities do not allow their students to use Wikipedia as a “source” is not because it is inaccurate on occasions, but because we do not know who produced the article.

John, that is your interpretation. Nowhere is any of that explicitly stated. The repeated theme is "revenge editing". Anonymity allows this type of editing. And it is the anonymity aspect which makes it tangentially related to your concern. If the point of the article was the refusal of schools to allow students to cite wikiledia, you would think it would make reference to that somewhere. It doesn't.

To an historian this is vitally important. We need to ask questions about the person who produced the source.

You are simply overlaying your deep-seated beliefs onto this article and using that to launch into one of your favourite themes.

This is what you have done with your comments about my page on David Lifton. You know from past experience that I consider David a good source of information on the JFK assassination.

I did not know that at all. I do now.

You can then use this information to question my interpretation of my biography of him.

No, John. My mind doesn't operate like that. I assumed - regardless of what I did or did not know - about your relationship with Lifton- that you would do what you claim to do: provide an array of viewpoints. What I question is how quotes from Lifton about Garrison constitute a proper citation under the heading of "sources" for a bio on Lifton. What I question is the lack of any sources on negative reviews of Best Evidence. Wiki is balanced, at least in that regard. Your bio on Lifton is bereft of any balance whatsoever.

In the same way that I can use the knowledge that you have had a long-running dispute with Lifton and that might influence your comments on him.

And so it should. My comments are most definitely influenced by that. But if were writing a bio on the man, I know I could put aside personal feelings and do an honest and balanced job. That you might believe otherwise (and apparently you do, regardless of whether it's me or anyone else) just shows that you really have no faith in humanity. I believe people act with honesty, integrity and good faith until shown otherwise.

Readers can also use the knowledge that you have criticised me in the past on this forum about my interpretation of different aspects of the JFK case.

I know you can, as most people are apt to be, including me, be sensitive to criticism. I have enough self awareness to know however, when it's warranted and when it's not - and to take it on the chin when it is. In any event, any criticism was intended to be about your choices and actions - not you personally. I'd be lying if I said I was not disappointed in you. But I fully understand that you probably feel the same about me.

As far as what readers may take on board - once again - you are assuming the very worst in human nature - that everything I say now is somehow out of spite. I thoroughly repudiate such a negative view of the world. On another level, I'm not sure how readers are even supposed to know about any such past criticism. I just find your whole line of reasoning regarding some of this, puzzling to say the least.

Let me delineate where I stand. I detest Lifton for a number of reasons including his attempted theft of my research and for his repeated lies about my site and what I believe - lies he repeated over and over even when each time, he was set right. Despite that, and my obvious animus toward him in every mention of his name in these threads, if I had to write a piece on him that was needed for a site like this or wikipedia, I would do a fair and balanced job. I take some pride in doing what I'm charged with doing and doing it to the best of my ability.

As for you, John,I have respect for your achievements and gentlemanly manners, even while lacking those same social graces myself. I vehemently disagree with some of your choices and decisions. And I think your attitude here is abysmal and smacks of some kind ideology or philosophical prism being employed in suggesting people might want to take into account past perceived criticisms when evaluating anything said now.

Also, because you know who the author of the Spartacus Educational, you can contact me about factual mistakes on my website. You have yourself done this in the past and when you show me that it is a factual inaccuracy rather than a different interpretation of the evidence, I have corrected it. Virtually everyday I get emails from people about changes they want on my pages. Often they are related to the person concerned and concerns family details. Sometimes it is from people who are experts on the subject. If it concerns factual inaccuracy I make a correction. Wikipedia on the other hand allows in theory anyone to correct entries. In reality, very few people are allowed to correct entries. Controversial subjects are especially well protected by gatekeepers.

Writing history is about interpreting the evidence. It is also about selecting the evidence to interpret. For example, recently I criticised the Wikipedia entry for Billie Sol Estes. Not because it included any false information but because it did not include information that showed the importance of his case against Lyndon Baines Johnson. This becomes a real problem when nearly all the newspaper obituaries relied so heavily on the Wikipedia entry and did not consider the appropriate evidence.

That is a problem with the newspapers - not with wikipedia.

There are several problems with Wikipedia. The most important point is that it suggests that it is possible to produce objective history. Jimmy Wales is actually on record as saying this. Secondly, it always appears first on Google searches for any subject you search for.

That is a problem with google, not with wikipedia.

Even when the entry is only a couple of lines, it appears above other more detailed sources of information. As most people have not studied history to a high level, they are extremely vulnerable to the idea that this information is reliable.

The same can be said for people looking for information about authors who land on this site. Back to pot and kettle again. Some of your bios are just plain awful. I'm sorry, John, but they are. And Lifton's could be set to music and played as a love song.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Greg Parker

[Richard Coleman]

Greg Parker said:

"But if were writing a bio on the man, I know I could put aside personal feelings and do an honest and balanced job."

"Despite that, and my obvious animus toward him in every mention of his name in these threads, if I had to write a piece on him that was needed for a site like this or wikipedia, I would do a fair and balanced job."

Whew, Greg, you are a paragon. Very few people other than msm "journalists" would make that claim I think. On what basis for example would you decide that certain facts or events were unimportant or irrelevant? How much emphasis to put on this or that circumstance? Etc.

Case in point: I read two biographies of the genius Nicola Tesla. They were different in at least one respect. One reported that Tesla claimed he literally "saw" the device he was thinking about in the air in front of him just as if it were a real physical object. (In other words a coherent hallucination.) He would watch it "work" and be able to to "see" whether the design was good or not, which parts needed to be redesigned, etc. and make the necessary corrections. This was all on an imaginary machine! When it was humming along to his satisfaction, he would go ahead and build it.

The other bio didn't mention this. It smacked too much of the quasi-occult that the author didn't believe in.

And so it goes. Are the standard histories of the U.S. "fair, honest, balanced and objective"? Then what are we to make of Howard Zinn's People's History?

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Greg, in case you are not aware - your profile picture doesn't seem to be showing. Could you please check and load your personal picture to your profile.

This is a very interesting discussion and one which would suffer from you being moderated for something trivial. It is the personal photographs which differentiate this site from those which allow anonymous memebers.

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker said:

"But if were writing a bio on the man, I know I could put aside personal feelings and do an honest and balanced job."

"Despite that, and my obvious animus toward him in every mention of his name in these threads, if I had to write a piece on him that was needed for a site like this or wikipedia, I would do a fair and balanced job."

Whew, Greg, you are a paragon. Very few people other than msm "journalists" would make that claim I think.

On what basis for example would you decide that certain facts or events were unimportant or irrelevant? How much emphasis to put on this or that circumstance? Etc.

It depends on what is required. John's bios for example, are not lengthy, and (from memory), usually and possibly never, contain any personal interpretations (paraphrasing aside) nor editorial comment. He merely paraphrases and quotes from books, magazines and newspapers. His other requirement (though not always applied by himself) is that a variety of viewpoints are represented.

The other thing to understand is that I have a public service background. One of the positions I held was in reviewing claims against rejections of social security payments as a last internal review before going to external courts and tribunals. When they did go that far, my reports would be the foundation of the department's case. In performing those duties, I had to review all relevant files and interview the claimant as well as the clerk who rejected the claim. It also involved researching any number of relevant acts. With regard to interviews - there were times when this involved people I had worked with previously - some of whom I had friendly relations with and others who I had previously pegged as incompetent, lazy or lacking a duty of care. Regardless, I treated everyone I interviewed as if starting with a clean slate. More than that, I treated them with respect, and I wrote my reports based solely on the facts as I found them - not on past perceptions. I never had one case overturned in court, and I had claimants thanking me even when I went against them, for listening to their side - for giving them a proper hearing.

Am I a paragon, Richard? I don't give a xxxx if I am or not. Or if you think I am or not. I give a xxxx about being fair and honest.

Case in point: I read two biographies of the genius Nicola Tesla. They were different in at least one respect. One reported that Tesla claimed he literally "saw" the device he was thinking about in the air in front of him just as if it were a real physical object. (In other words a coherent hallucination.) He would watch it "work" and be able to to "see" whether the design was good or not, which parts needed to be redesigned, etc. and make the necessary corrections. This was all on an imaginary machine! When it was humming along to his satisfaction, he would go ahead and build it.

Case in point: I read two biographies of the genius Nicola Tesla. They were different in at least one respect. One reported that Tesla claimed he literally "saw" the device he was thinking about in the air in front of him just as if it were a real physical object. (In other words a coherent hallucination.) He would watch it "work" and be able to to "see" whether the design was good or not, which parts needed to be redesigned, etc. and make the necessary corrections. This was all on an imaginary machine! When it was humming along to his satisfaction, he would go ahead and build it.

The other bio didn't mention this. It smacked too much of the quasi-occult that the author didn't believe in.\

How do you know what the second author thought? How do you even know he knew about it? Unless you have some evidence to back up that he knew about it and what what he thought about it, you are making assumptions.

And so it goes. Are the standard histories of the U.S. "fair, honest, balanced and objective"?

Not any standard histories I've read.

Then what are we to make of Howard Zinn's People's History?

Can't comment. haven't read it.

But you seem to want to compare apples to oranges. We're talking here about brief on-line bios - no more than an overview (though not a one-side one - the sticking point with Lifton's bio) of various authors. We are not talking about War and Peace.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Greg Parker

[Guest Tom Scully]

Wikipedia is a mess. Wikipedia articles enjoy exposure through prominence in google search results.

The wikipedia "article" represented as a "biography" of Earl Warren is an outrageous misrepresentation, especially compared to the

wikipedia "article" about the late President Kennedy.

The wikipedia article on Murray Chotiner mentions Earl Warren. The Earl Warren wikipedia page does not mention Chotiner.

A while back, before the Earl Warren wikipedia page had even ballooned to its now shrine-like homage to the man, it seemed appropriate

to attempt to balance the Earl Warren page by adding a "controversy" section.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658

..........

Controversy

Although Drew Pearson and Earl Warren were close friends and vacationed together^[44] and considering Pearson's stepson, Tyler Abell and his wife Bess were employed in the Lyndon Johnson White House^[45], the reporting of Drew Pearson in October, 1963, was incompatible with the proposal by Earl Warren and the endorsement of Tom C. Clark of the appointment of Albert E. Jenner, Jr. to the Warren Commission staff.

In 1946, fearing for his life, Chicago organized crime leader James M. Ragen contacted Clark through newspaper columnist Drew Pearson to obtain the protection of federal agents in exchange for information. A dozen FBI agents were sent to Chicago to interrogate Ragen. After checking and confirming the details of mob activity provided by Ragen, Tom Clark withdrew Ragen's FBI protection for lack of federal jurisdiction to prosecute the suspects Ragen named. Almost immediately, Ragen was seriously wounded by gunfire. Several suspects were arrested but no one was prosecuted due to the disappearance of some witnesses and the lack of cooperation of others. Ragen's condition was improving after the shooting, but he died suddenly in the hospital of mercury poisoning. Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959 edited by Tyler Abell.^[46]; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.^{[47][48][46][49][50][51][52][53][54]}

Earl Warren and his family were close friends of Henry Crown's investment partner, Conrad Hilton, and Warren's daughter, Virginia was formerly involved in a close relationship with Conrad Hilton.^{[55][56][57][58]} The year following the publication of the Warren Report, Earl Warren selected^[59] as his Supreme Court law clerk, the son of Paul Ziffren,^[60]former California state Democratic party chairman, forced to resign after allegations of Ziffren's organized crime connections were leveled by Earl Warren's friend,^[61] Senator William F. Knowland.^{[62][63][64][65]}

"One of the things that was embarrassing and got national coverage was the Reader's Digest article of July, 1960. It was written by Lester Velie and is called, "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." (The author sets forth a very detailed account of "Ziffren 's connections with the underworld and gambling figures of the period,") "^[66]

Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al., Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.^[67] In December 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. ^[68]

The appointment of Albert Jenner to investigate^[69] whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.^[70][71] In 1953, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. had represented Michael Frank Darling when he was investigated by the House Committee on Education and Labor.^[72]Darling was business manager of IBEW union Chicago local 1031, the first and largest union organization to contract insurance coverage with Allen Dorfman and his father, Paul, an associate of Jack Ruby. ^[73][74][75]

The newly added "Controversy" section in the wikipedia bio of Earl Warren was removed exactly 2-1/2 hours later.:

(cur | prev)02:00, 5 June 2011‎ Rjensen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (58,036 bytes) (-13,263)‎ . . (drop long passage based on gossip not reliable secondary sources,.& not closely tied to Warren) (undo)

A protest of the quick deletion was posted on the "talk" page.:

Why are details justified by the notion of the compromising potential of appearance of impropriety, unchallenged in edits of the JFK article, but nonexistent in the Earl Warren article?

Rjensen is on record on the Archive 5 talk page of the [[John F. Kennedy]] article, posting his concern that the sexual liasons of high government officials are relevant to any bio article of such a person because of the issue that the "official puts his official position at risk". He then goes on to assert his opinion that the lack of details in the wikipedia JFK article related to Kennedy's private sex life are "being covered up here simply for POV reasons."

I submit that, considering his prior comments and the length of my edit and the sheer quantity and variety of supporting citations included in it, that because Rjensen so swiftly entirely deleted my edit, he could not possibly have made a neutral and thorough evaluation of the contents of my edit before he deleted it. I attempted to discuss the above points with him on his talk page, and he has deleted my comments there. I made a well thought out and very well supported edit to the [[Earl Warren]] article. I made the edit in good faith. The good faith I am practicing is not being met in kind. ..... link

On the "talk" page of the wikipedia bio of John F. Kennedy, these excerpts are displayed.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_F._Kennedy/Archive_5

Clarification

A recent edit misinterpreted the statement, John F. Kennedy became the first President to fly in his own jet aircraft [1] (emphasis added) Previously, propeller aircraft were used to fly the presidents. Jehochman ^Talk 08:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

not very encyclopedic. This particular plane came on duty in Kennedy's term so he was the first president to fly in it? Big deal. If that's what Wiki says he's famous for, it diminishes his stature. Rjensen (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC) That too! I was pointing out why a statement that had been added, and then removed, was incorrect.Jehochman ^Talk 09:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC) .................................. Affairs

.......................

I found it really odd too. His was a known philanderer yet this article doesn't even mention it. Here's a recent article that talks about his sex addition more explicitly:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article6099083.ece JettaMann (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

............................

If one is going to start mentioning different women he may (or may not) have been with then one would have to do it for Martin Luther King, Jr.; LBJ, FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and Eisenhower (affair in WWII with his driver, Kay Summersby), etc. Further, would one also have to go into Pres. Grover Cleveland and the fact he may have produced a child "out of wed-lock." Where does one draw the line. This is a slippery slope to go down; and my point is mainly that if you do it for one (JFK), you must do it for all.Kierzek (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)kierzek

here's where people draw the line: A high official puts his official position at risk through secret sexual activities that if discovered would likely undermine his political base and perhaps force his resignation. This covers for example the current (Paterson) and previous (Spitzer) governor or New York (Paterson solved the problem by dropping the secrecy and announcing his affairs when he took office.) Rjensen (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more to it then that. I am talking about fairness in entries reported on and an objective balance in reporting (that can be confirmed). The entries made for this web-site are not a tabloid or tell-all book. And if it is about a high official (at some point) engaging in activities for which they may (at some point) be subject to political problems then it could be activities that happen years before they took office or when they are in office. The entries on this web-site are for an overview; people who are interested can read other web-sites noted or any of the range of books cited in the entry for JFK or others related to him. Therein one can learn much more then what is written here (even if the bias or views put forth, may or may not be confirmed as they should).Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia this article fails badly. EVERY serious biographer and scholar has dealt with the topic as a major factor in understanding JFK--it is being covered up here simply for POV reasons. Rjensen (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Covered up?" This isn't Watergate. But I leave it to others to further comment and I stand by my points made as to how these subject matters should be handled as far as consideration to all who are featured herein (see examples I name above).Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

...................

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&noj=1&biw=1080&bih=539&tbm=bks&q=%22*from+the+bodyguard+which+had+been+assigned+to+Mr.+Hilton%2C+and+one+who+had+been+assigned+to+shadow+Miss+Virginia+Warren%2C%22&oq=%22*from+the+bodyguard+which+had+been+assigned+to+Mr.+Hilton%2C+and+one+who+had+been+assigned+to+shadow+Miss+Virginia+Warren%2C%22&gs_l=serp.12...26058.26867.0.28785.5.5.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.1.14.serp.6C-gPNR24ic

books.google.com/books?id=gdIGAQAAIAAJ

Bernard Augustine De Voto, Cairns Collection of American Women Writers - 1958 - Snippet view - More editions

NEW ORIEANS— International Trad* Mart , SAN FRANCISCO— St. Froncll Hotal from the bodyguard which had been assigned to Mr. Hilton, and one who had been assigned to shadow Miss Virginia Warren, the daughter of the Chief Justice

http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-virginia-warren-daly6-2009mar06,0,3135586.story

By Patricia Sullivan

March 5, 2009, 8:56 p.m.

.....

Reporting from Washington—

In the 1950s and '60s, if Virginia Warren Daly came to your party, you had it made. Effervescent, beautiful and popular with the opposite sex, the daughter of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren was a staple of the society columns in Washington and New York.

Daly died of cancer Feb. 19 at her Washington home. She was 80.

Daly was at all the best parties of the era.

.........Daly, who was rarely quoted in the news media, enjoyed traveling the world with hotel magnate Conrad "Connie" Hilton, her daughter said.

Hilton Party Arrives in Berlin After False Start

‎

Los Angeles Times - Nov 30, 1958

Conrad N. Hilton, president of the Hilton Hotel chain, arrived tonight for inaugural ... to turn back when their plane developed engine trou- ble over Nova Scotia. ... Members of the party in- cluded Mrs. Earl Warren and her daughter Virginia; ..

The double standard and incoherency of Rjensen, editing wikipedia pages non-stop for the past 8 years, resulst in a pristine presentation of Earl Warren and ....this "sub-section" in the wilkipedia bio of President Kennedy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_f_kennedy#Extra-marital_relationships

Extra-marital relationships

As a young single man in the 1940s, Kennedy had affairs with Danish journalist Inga Arvad,^[271] and actress Gene Tierney.^[272] Later in life, Kennedy reportedly had affairs with a number of women, including Marilyn Monroe,^[273]Gunilla von Post,^[274]Judith Campbell,^[275]Mary Pinchot Meyer,^[276]Marlene Dietrich,^[277]Mimi Alford,^[278] and Jackie's press secretary, Pamela Turnure.^[279] Kennedy's philandering may have included actress Angie Dickinson,^[280] and White House secretaries Priscilla Weir and Jill Cowen.^[281] The extent of a relationship with Monroe will never be known, although it has been reported they spent a weekend together in March 1962 while Kennedy was staying at Bing Crosby's house.^[282] Further, the White House switch board noted calls from her during 1962.^[283] FBI director, Hoover, received reports as to Kennedy's indiscretions.^[284] Doctors speculated that the drugs the president required for Addison's disease had the side effect of increasing his virility.^[169] The president remarked to UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, "I wonder how it is for you, Harold? If I don't have a woman for three days, I get terrible headaches."^[285] Kennedy may have been influenced by his father Joe Kennedy's open affair with Gloria Swanson.^[286] According to John F. Kennedy himself, Joe told his sons to get "laid as often as possible."^[286] Kennedy inspired affection and loyalty from the members of his team and his supporters.^[287] According to Reeves, this included "the logistics of Kennedy's liaisons ... [which] required secrecy and devotion rare in the annals of the energetic service demanded by successful politicians."^[288] Kennedy believed that his friendly relationship with members of the press would help protect him from revelations about his sex life.^[289]

During the Election of 1960, Republican Senator Hugh Scott, at an October 3, 1960 press conference, stated in reference to Kennedy running for the Presidency, "this is no job for a playboy."^[290] Scott, a member of the Republican Truth Squad, was referring to Kennedy riding his yacht in Hyannis Port, absent from the Senate during a vote on medical care for the elderly.^[290] Scott stated that Senator Kennedy was absent from voting in the Senate 331 times out of 1,189 times, not including the 36 absences due to Kennedy's back surgery in 1955, during the time period from 1953 to 1960.^[290]

271 Dallek 2003, pp. 83-85.

272 Osborne 2006, p. 195.

273 Reeves 1993, pp. 315–316.

274 Bone, James (February 17, 2010), "How JFK's Riviera romance led to years of longing", The Times, London. Retrieved April 2, 2010.

275 Reeves 1993, p. 289

276 Dallek 2003, p. 475.

277 Dallek 2003, p. 58.

278 Garrow, David J. (May 28, 2003). "Substance Over Sex In Kennedy Biography". The New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2013.

279 Dallek 2003, pp. 475, 476.

280 Hagood 1998, pp. 138, 164.

281 Hagood 1998, p. 150.

282 Leaming 2006, pp. 379-380.

283 Dallek 2003, p. 581.

284 Dallek 2003, p. 376.

285 Reeves 1993, p. 290.

286 Hagood 1998, p. 139.

287 Barnes 2007, p. 116.

288 Reeves 1993, p. 291.

289 Dallek 2003, p. 478.

290 New York Times (1960), Kennedy assailed by 'Truth Squad' Republicans Assert Senator Is Too Often Absent -- Term Him a 'Playboy'

Greg,

I do not think Mr. Lifton could have done much more to discredit the "CT Community" duing the past 45 years than if it had been his intention to do so.:

[Greg Parker]

But Greg the difference is that something like Brittanica is supposed to be done by academia elites. ANd we know how that works. Like any bureacracy, you go along to get along.

But Wiki was supposed to be done by the citizenry.

It didn't turn out that way, at least on these cases.

Jim, what you're describing is not an encyclopaedia - it's a blog. And with the assassination, who, in such an open slather affair, is going to be the final arbiter of what the facts are? Expectations seem to be way too high. I don't know anyone who, on anything of any import, takes wiki as the most credible source. But if newspaper obits rely heavily on wikipedia, it is not the fault of wikipedia - it is a fundamental problem with the newspaper industry being taken over by accountants cutting costs so that real journalism has all but disappeared. If wikipedia comes up first in google searches, it is not the fault of wikipedia. The problem lies within the operations of google. If, as a result of people landing on wiki through google, they take their history from wiki, it is a problem with the education system, not with wiki. But I would question whether those same people would be any better served by landing on spartacus bios.

The bottom line for me remains: to change what wiki - or any encyclopaedia writes about the assassination, you need first to have the official history rewritten. You need a new, officially sanction verdict. To expect anything else is to expect the cart to precede the horse,

In view of Gary's comments, that's it from me.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Greg Parker

[Guest Gary Loughran]

In view of Gary's comments, that's it from me.

That is the last thing I want. Why would you not just load a picture?