Jump to content

Talk:Jim Marrs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conspiracy Theorist

[edit]

Should we not call a spade a spade? The man is a conspiracy theorist. this article seems like it was written by him or someone associated with him. I'd rather not edit the page, because conspiracy theorists tend to be psychologically unsound individuals, and I could not be NPOV in my edit. GreatGatsby 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're right. The article says he's a conspiracy theorist; that's his job, if you will. So, you're not supposed to read further, since conspiracy theorists tend to be psychologically unsound individuals.
You should only consider this: to you, the article is bullshit, except the first sentence, "Jim Marrs is a conspiracy theorist".
NassWiki (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did my part and fixed a few weasel words and NPOV branding in order to make this more neutral, rather than a standard issue discreditation piece. This isn't mainstream media, lets get real. The term "conspiracy theorist" is a typical standard issue brand name used to alienate people who are trying to get the truth out and back it with real proof and facts. Sadly in our society we have been trained to crucify people who know something is happening or that there is corruption going on. a very small percentage of these people are the ones who make shit up and are paranoid, but this is a very small percentage. At least 90% of so called "conspiracy theorist" are some of the most researched and psychologically sound individuals that there are compared to the rest of the population. If anyone wants to contest this then you can take up with me personally or get off Wikipedia and stop polluting it. Preservefreedom (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Preservefreedom! It is unfortunate that there are those who will discredit anyone who does "investigative journalism". They will label those who do not go along with the brainwashing agenda anything under the sun, and ridicule them. Go to Youtube and look up Ron Paul, and you will see exactly what I mean. I've read what Jim Marrs has said about the Federal Reserve, and he is dead-on accurate, and most of his other works are very well researched. I'm glad Wikipedia has patriots like yourself to try to lessen the propaganda.Goldwings (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Gamaliel Investigative journalist is the technical term that is supposed to be used in a neutral sense. And what are you talking about when you claim that Investivative Journalist is "too far in the other direction"? There is no spectrum in play here, it's simple research topics. There's a laundry list of fully proven and accepted conspiracies that have happened. And every time back then when a "conspiracy theorist" would try and prove it and the mainstream would slaughter him for it. This is typical mentality of people that don't want to do real political research into something and come out with an un-bias result. I'm sure that there are some people that take research a little too far, but this guy sure isn't one of them, and most of the others aren't. 24.144.140.206 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some conspiracies happened does not legitimize Marrs' theories about JFK, 911, aliens, or whatever. A couple of years as a police reporter doesn't make one an "investigative journalist" and what he is best known for is not legitimate journalistic work, but conspiracy books, and the intro should reflect that. Gamaliel (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm not talking about some job as a police reporter or any past jobs like that. I'm a computer technician in my own business. I don't work for some big company who labels me as such, but does that mean I'm not a computer technician? An investigative journalist is basically someone who does a vast amount of research on various topics and reports on it or gets the word out. Investigating is the main part they perform since they aren't handed stories by a boss or co worker like in syndicated media. Some stories that an investigative journalist research and report on can be topics most people have second guesses about but that doesn't mean they should be shunned for it. if someone is trying to do this kind of work and has the guts to report it even in the face of being ridiculed they shouldn't be looked as less just because mainstream doesn't support it. For example, people in the former nazi germany were thrown out and had their lives ruined because they tried to warn the people about what the government was doing. That still happens today in our country, with some scary similarities. I've seen very smart people get shot down publicly because someone doesn't want their information out, and I've even seen amazing politicians like Ron Paul get crucified because they are warning us about the threat of our own government's intervention in the financial system. One might not like what they have to say, even I don't completely agree with Jim Marrs, but he shouldn't be shut out just because we disagree with something he says. He may have some good research and some bad research, but no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. I could practically write a book on all the mistakes and things done by mainstream media, but people still bow to their words. Please this information I present into consideration in trying to maintain NPOV articles. Wikipedia isn't exactly the best place of information for controversial information because NPOV typically just means whatever is "mainstream". People need to try and fix this to keep the site's credibility in the future. Preservefreedom (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To legitimize a conspiracy theorist with the title "investigative journalist" does nothing for NPOV or the credibility of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about legitimizing anyone because how did they become "illegitimate" in the first place? Who decided, and on what evidence? Like I already said, everyone makes mistakes, both in mainstream media and non-mainstream media, but it's no excuse to shut the non-mainstream out. This country was started by non-mainstream. It would take a much better defense than just that to try and change an article. Preservefreedom (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reflects mainstream consensus. We are not here to challenge the mainstream, we are the mainstream. By no mainstream definition is Marrs an investigative journalist. Gamaliel (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To illegitimize an investigative journalist with the title "conspiracy theorist" does nothing for NPOV or the credibility of Wikipedia. Goldwings (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to your classy response and your edit summaries, I point you to WP:CIVIL. Gamaliel (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been to that page many times. Preservefreedom is very much in line with wikipedia guidelines, and Jim Marrs does, in fact, fit the profile of an investigative journalist. I'm sorry not everyone is on board with your agenda. Goldwings (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you obviously have not read that page since you continue to make insinuations about my alleged "agenda". My agenda is improving the encyclopedia. Unless someone can show that Marrs is considered an "investigative journalist" by the standards of the profession, I will continue to oppose this language in the intro. Gamaliel (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although Marrs clearly has journalistic training, it is a tough sell to continue to refer to him as such. A journalist goes where the story takes them (or at least should do that) and Marrs seems to approach everything from a conspiracy viewpoint. That being said, investigative journalist and conspiracy theorists are not mutually exclusive. You can make a case for Marrs being both, I guess. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't mutally exclusive, but we shouldn't call him an "investigative journalist" because some people feel like it. A recent edit summary said "anyone can be a journalist". Perhaps a blogger or an author can be a journalist just as you can be a teacher if you teach your child to read or ride a bike. But in terms of professions, just as the teaching profession has certifications and qualifications, unless the journalistic profession recognizes Marrs as a journalist currently, we should not label him as such. Gamaliel (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel seriously, this is getting kinda redundant. All you are doing is you keep reverting it back to the beginning and not even accepting that maybe there is a better way to edit it. I have made another compromise again, after this there are no more compromises. I got rid of the investigative journalist to make you happy. I also removed the part where it says "alleged government conspiracies" because that just looks like wording used to totally discredit something. It's hardly neutral at all. It's like being on the news and an anchor says "today someone alleged that the federal reserve is a private bank" as if it wasn't already old news and already proven. I would assume that it's not intentional the way you want the article to say it like that, but it sure looks like it to someone who doesn't know the subjects and takes something at face value. I'm sure the guy may do some research that is maybe a bit over the edge, but it sure isn't all like that. If a significant number of other people think what I say is wrong, then we can talk about throwing it back to the beginning again, until then it needs to get talked about before any changes get made. Preservefreedom (talk) 06:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsquire and his camp are all wrong. I have heard Mr. Marrs speak many times for quite a while. He speaks in facts and lets you draw your own conclusion. He can recite fact after fact after fact in chronological order. Some people just have a "kill the messenger" mentality.

The idea that people still use a phrase like "conspiracy theorist" for someone who has been a hard-working journalist~ uncovering facts anyone can check~ for 40-plus years, (Jim Marrs) just goes to show that about 20-30 percent of the population is simply uneducable.

Would you call a phone book a "telecommunications conspiracy theory" ~ then get really mad, then add some vulgar language discribing it's content, and personally attack the sanity of its its authors? This lack of class. not to mention logic, brings to mind the expression "consider the source". DeviDarshan (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, people need to get over this illogical, irrational BS and asininity about the terms "Conspiracy Theory" and "Conspiracy Theorist", especially when they are used as (too typical) derogatory and dismissive attacks against people and/or their work. I don't know if (too many) people are just ignorant, uneducated, unaware, ultra-biased, or what, but conspiracy theories occur every day, all day long, all around the world. Some are large, some are small, some are unethical (i.e., not illegal), some are criminal, and some are benign (e.g. Surprise Birthday Parties). People need to keep in mind that there is a reason why we have laws (in the U.S., and elsewhere) like Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Conspiracy to Commit Arson, General Conspiracy, and the RICO Statutes. This is not Brain Science or Rocket Surgery. It's simple common sense and general knowledge. People who have these ridiculous agendas need to be shut down and not allowed to spread their mind-filth here, and elsewhere, because it hurts us all. WillBo (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Reliable Sources

[edit]

There appears to be only one reliable sources, the San Francisco Chronicle, cited for this entire article. Please add mainstream reputable sources to this article, meeting WP:RS. So far, they're lacking, and that makes this article a candidate for And for lack of notability. Thanks. Morton devonshire 22:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about 911 theorists, but Marrs is one of the most notable and important people in the JFK conspiracy field and his views have been a major influence on public opinion, most importantly via the Stone movie. This article isn't going anywhere. Gamaliel 22:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can dig your heels in, or you can provide reliable sources supporting your contention. Which is it going to be? If it's a "major influence", then show us where that major influence is, as it should therefore be easily sourced. Stomping your feet and saying "this article isn't going anywhere" won't keep it from the gallows. Morton devonshire 23:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Already done. The fact that he wrote a book that was one of the two books that the film JFK was based on is more than sufficient. You can accept that and move on, or you can dig your heels in and submit yet another dubious AfD nomination. Gamaliel 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already sourced in Wikipedia, and linked. Now, I suppose someone might not think to click on the JFK movie link to check the writing credit, so I added an internal ref to that. Could be construed as WP:OSTRICH, but of course not that I'm implying that's necessarily the case here. *Sparkhead 01:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the San Francisco Chronicle not a mainstream reliable source? I don't see where WP:RS specifices that more than one is necessary, althought there are several now. Also, how about actually spending a few seconds actually trying to improve articles (try Google) before leaping straight for the AFD? Though, from the barnstars you hand out, it looks like you're on a delete jihad based on article topic. Bottom line: he's a NYTimes bestselling author; delete that. Derex 03:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read my first comment. Morton devonshire 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Re-read my second sentence. Derex 07:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marrs?

[edit]

Is Jim Marrs any relation to Texe Marrs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cactus Wren (talk • contribs) 04:05:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC). Sorry, I forgot to sign that. Cactus Wren 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JimMarrs.jpg

[edit]

Image:JimMarrs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:JimMarrs.jpg

[edit]

Image:JimMarrs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If youy ave any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments?

[edit]

I remember reading Rule by Secrecy and all the hay he made about "The Federal Reserve is a private bank in disguise; government policies being controlledby a private insitutution, etc., etc." Has he had anything to say since the federal government started nationalizing private banks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.97.69.26 (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for someone who owns Rule by Secrecy

[edit]

I have a quick request for anyone who owns Rule by Secrecy or a suitable facsimile. On what page does he mention Larry McDonald introducing legislation into Congress for the investigation of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission? I think it should be relatively near the beginning. (I ask this so I can properly cite that occurrence in the Larry McDonald article.)

I realize it's unlikely that someone who can help will see this, but it's worth a shot. --darolew (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Marrs. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jim Marrs. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Marrs. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Marrs&oldid=1195557224"