Jump to content

Talk:Carl Weiss: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Macdust (talk | contribs)
Line 56: Line 56:
If it's genuine, would that not be the evidence for Weiss' claim? --[[User:Chris Keating|Chris Keating]] ([[User talk:Chris Keating|talk]]) 05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If it's genuine, would that not be the evidence for Weiss' claim? --[[User:Chris Keating|Chris Keating]] ([[User talk:Chris Keating|talk]]) 05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::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). [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
::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). [[User:Rjensen|Rjensen]] ([[User talk:Rjensen|talk]]) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

== Unacceptable claim of certainty. ==

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' conviction 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. [[User:Macdust|Macdust]] ([[User talk:Macdust|talk]]) 08:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

Revision as of 08:31, 14 August 2013

WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

How Many Times Was This Man Shot?

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)[reply]

The Question

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) A paternal ancestor was Jewish. The family had long since converted to Roman Catholicism. Dr. Carl Austin Weiss was devout. He also was very upset by European fascist anti-semitism, especially after an encounter with Mussolini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob3 (talkcontribs) 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo?

Is there any reason why the photo of the late doctor was removed; copyright violation? Otherwise, it may be of benefit.



No

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).[reply]

Rotten Library

Has this information about Long: "Corrupt governor of Louisiana. Ran the state as his private fiefdom." This article makes him look like a pretty flower...

the other side

There are two sides to every story. Our government has always had an effective way of dealing with those who were proving themselves dangerous. The eastern establishment was not going to let a good old boy run anything beyond his own backyard...Thank You. Margaret Suckley-beauty of the North............

Tulane Medical School?

I've always been under the impression that Dr. Weiss graduated from the Tulane Medical School?

Weiss' Jewish Heritage

It's necessary to include that Carl Weiss was born Jewish and converted to Catholicism. I'm not sure why this biographical information is neglected in the bio section... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajokie (talkcontribs) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is indicative of him not being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Framed?

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)[reply]

Death of Long listed by insurance company as "accidental"?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unacceptable claim of certainty.

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' conviction 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).[reply]