Talk:Clay Shaw

Thanks to all who participated in the RfC

As andreasegde points out, for such a short article, RPJ and I were getting into a lengthy dispute about what is essentially a very basic matter. Namely, what does the article say, and whether RPJ was accurately relaying that. All of the commments seem to agree with the proposition that the article was being misinterpreted, and I do agree with the changes that have been made. Once again, thanks to all for their insight. Ramsquire 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Everybody should use citations. If they are found and are well-sourced, then they are right. End of argument.

• Any pieces written with citations that are then deleted is against WP policy.

This has been pointed out hundreds of times. Let´s play by the rules, and be nice. andreasegde 10:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not the end of the argument, you have to accurately portray what you are citing. Just because someone puts a source on their statement, doesn't mean it stays in. If they are misquoting the source, the entry should be deleted because in effect their entry remains unverifiable. You can't overcome that by misquoting or stretching sources.Ramsquire 21:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No Ramsquire, you are incorrect. No one agreed with your contention that there were no links between Shaw and the CIA. 33 assignments over an eight year period clearly show Shaw being connected to the CIA. The CIA now admits there was a connection and the CIA now admits it "struggled" to keep it secret. Just accept it-you were wrong.

Your attempt to change the subject from what you first said, in error, needs to be recognized by yourself. RPJ 05:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. RPJ, the entire argument is above. You'll note that I said that you mis-cited your source (inaccurate) and that your edits were one-sided (misleading). Seems that most of the comments agreed with my take on it. I am correct. Here's a direct quote: "The other issue I had is that you present the evidence in a one-sided way. Unless the reader checked the cite, he would have no way to know that the article actually serves to state that Shaw had no links to the CIA, which is counter to the information presented in the article. Whatever happened to presenting both viewpoints, and letting the reader decide? Let the readers know the main thesis of the article instead of using the information in the article in a misleading way."

But since you want to pursue your position. I'll play your game. 33 "assignments"? Where are you getting that from? Cite your sources. Otherwise its just wild speculating and you're free to do that on your blog, just not at Wiki. And those 33 contacts do not "clearly" show anything. Shaw was accused of being an employee of the CIA, he was not. His contacts were voluntary and unpaid. If you have contradictory information provide it.

To me "linked", "connected with", "tied", "part of" all imply a paid and/or covert position with the CIA. Shaw was NOT any of these, unless you can provide contrary proof of his employment with the agency. The CIA admitted that Shaw voluntarily contacted them and they didn't want to release the contacts. I'm sure one reason for their hesitance is due to people then wanting to attach sinister motives behind these contacts, as well as them protecting their methods of collecting intelligence. I, as well as millions of other Americans have contacted the CIA over the years. It does not mean we have connection with the organization or that we are informers.

If you just had WP:FAITH with other editors, maybe they'd extend it to you. When I first read your edit,I assumed you misread the article and that you did not purposely lie to make a case. Now, after comments by other users saying essentially the same thing about your edits, along with your continued efforts to push this theory without any sources. I wonder if you did try to mislead readers on purpose. If that's the case, your just trolling here, which ruins the experience for everyone.

Ramsquire 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Shaw was NOT an INFORMER

An informer is paid for their work. Shaw voluntarily gave information to the CIA and was unpaid. Even when informers aren't paid with cash, they are given something in return, some sort of compensation, for their information. There is not one bit of information currently available showing Shaw received any compensation for the information he supplied to the CIA.

To imply that Shaw was an informer, or deliberately state that he was "two-bit informant" without any source for the accusation comes very close to libelling a dead man. (Although one cannot file a lawsuit for libel against a dead man in many jurisdictions, the act of libelling can still be performed after someone's death and should be avoided). Editor's here need to be aware of the Sigenthaler situation, and be careful when discussing persons on these pages. Please try to go with what you can prove or at least blame on a third party source when discussing actual people on Wikipedia, please.

Ramsquire 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

- - - - - - -

Just want to point out that Ramsquire is either mistaken or lying. A CIA memo dated 1992 referred to Shaw as a "highly paid" contract source. This isn't hard to find.

Interesting how self-styled debunkers are so often found to be engaging in the same type of misrepresentation as "conspiracy theorists".

- - - - - - - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.161.229 (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Clay gave information to the CIA. Proven. It was not very important, but "reliable", and "useful". Proven. What´s the problem? If we start with the idea that any kind of "connection" with the CIA is "sinister", then we are starting at the wrong place, are we not? Let´s leave it and move on.

BTW, the "two-bit" was a quote (from somebody else/a third party). andreasegde 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to move on. This is a very serious issue I see at Wikipedia, and if editors aren't more careful, eventually this project will be shut down because of it. The problem is that people throwing out descriptors of people without evidence supporting it. You describe Shaw as an informant to the CIA without any evidence to back it up. That's placing Shaw in a false light, which is libellous. If he were alive, he would have a strong case against you and Wikipedia for defamation because it would make him seem like a liar for his repeated denials of being connected to the CIA. I'm not caught up with whether his contacts were sinister or not. I'm trying to get people to understand that you can't say someone was a CIA informant without evidence supporting it. Ramsquire 16:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn´t say that he was, but other people (who know better than I) said it. This is why we are here: to report information from verifiable sources. Saying that I personally said it is also a bit unfair, is it not? I was quoting from other sources. I think a cup of tea and a slice of cake is in order... andreasegde 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few things to read through:

"Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified, under oath, in 1979 that Clay Shaw had from 1948 to 1956 been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Division of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad and specifically from his visits to countries behind the Iron Curtain. By the mid-1970s 150,000 Americans (businessmen, journalists, travelers) had provided such information to the DCS. It is unknown now whether this information would have influenced the outcome of the Shaw trial in New Orleans." [1]

"Secret documents released by the Agency show something entirely different, as does the testimony of former CIA insider Victor Marchetti." [2]

"But Marchetti and the others were told that the CIA's connection with Shaw was to be top secret. The agency did not want "even a remote connection with Shaw" to leak out, Marchetti said.” [3]

“Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961”. LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON - General Counsel. [4]

His documented connection to the CIA suddenly ended in 1956, odd for someone a CIA internal report called a ´valuable informant´". [5] andreasegde 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you never attributed it to anyone else, so I, as long as other people reading this page, would have no idea if you were just repeating information heard elsewhere or if it was coming from you. If you aren't saying it personally I apologize for wrongly accusing you, but it wasn't clear from your edits. That's why we all need to be careful about what we say about people and how we say it. This issue usually comes up more in the political articles, where I also edit. So I admit to being a bit more sensitive to these unsourced descriptors than others users.

I am aware of all the information you provided. But none of it is proof of Shaw doing anything more than voluntarily contacting the agency on average once every three months for eight years. Keep in mind that the charge from Garrison was that Shaw was an employee of the CIA. Richard Helms testifed that Shaw volunteered information to the DSC. An employee wouldn't voluntarily give information, it is considered his job. Marchetti explicitly states that Shaw was gave info to the DCS, which is now admitted by all. Marchetti's claim that this was a cover is his own speculation based on the fact that "the CIA lied all the time." That's not proof or evidence. Just his opinion.

Can't we just agree that without proof actually describing Shaw as a spook, we should just state what we know, and not try to label it? In a nutshell, that's all I'm saying. Ramsquire 18:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that´s absolutely right, Ramsquire. I totally agree with you. No labels; just the facts. andreasegde 17:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it so odd that Shaw stopped providing the CIA with information? Max Holland writes: "Why the relationship ended after 1956 is not revealed in any of the recently declassified CIA files or Shaw’s own papers. Whatever the reason, the documentary record is clear: Shaw was not handed off by the DCS and developed as a covert operative by the CIA’s Plans (now Operations) Directorate. The relationship just lapsed. He had never received any remuneration and probably considered the reporting a civic duty that was no longer urgent once the hostility between the two superpowers became frozen in place and a new world war no longer appeared imminent." [6]

And here is the full quote of your second citation: "Jim Garrison charged that Clay Shaw was a CIA agent, and Garrison supporters have accepted this view. But secret documents released by the Agency show something entirely different, as does the testimony of former CIA insider Victor Marchetti." Gamaliel 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even going to get to that part. Good catch. Ramsquire 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"And here is the full quote" - is only refuting Garrison´s claims; which is going around in circles. andreasegde 12:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bias and fact

This is exactly the problem - but there is a way out. What Garrison theorised, what theorists personally say, and also what anti-theorists state "is the truth" is worth nothing at all. We are all wrong if we state our own personal opinions. We are all wrong if we fight against "supposed", or "inferred" comments, from both sides. If we do that we are all wasting our time and knocking our heads against each other. Let´s stop it.

• Sometimes the facts are not as interesting as we think they are.

• Sometimes the smaller things are more important than we think they are. andreasegde 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What is an anti-theorist?... just kidding... I understand what you are saying and agree with the theory. It's just that it doesn't work in the real world of Wiki, where certain users refuse to see the larger picture and can't always agree on whether something is personal bias or supported fact. Ramsquire 18:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but it´s not a theory; it´s a real-world Wiki fact. We must all stick to the rules of Wiki, and then life would be a lot simpler. I found it very tedious at first; to constantly open Winword and then copy quotes and Web addresses over, but that is the work we have (voluntarily) choosen to do. We are here as editors, who report the facts as we know them (with citations) whether they conform to our own opinions or not. (That´s the hard bit...) As for the future:

• Any inserts without a citation should be deleted. Words and phrases like, "Inferred, many people believe, it has been said," and "it has been reported", should be considered a POV.

• Any edits with a verifiable citation should be left alone - and never deleted - or moved to somewhere else so as to conform to style. (That´s where the arguments should start, if any...)

• People once fervently believed that the Earth was flat. andreasegde 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Any inserts without a citation should be deleted. Words and phrases like, "Inferred, many people believe, it has been said," and "it has been reported", should be considered a POV.

• Any edits with a verifiable citation should be left alone - and never deleted - or moved to somewhere else so as to conform to style. (That´s where the arguments should start, if any...)

Just to clarify, Wiki does allow information that is general knowledge to be placed into the article without citations. What is "general knowledge" is always debatable. Also, an edit must accurately portray what it is citing, and the information must be verifiable. For examply, an edit that states, "The Earth is a spheroid" that is cited to the Warren Commission should either be deleted as that issue of the shape of the Earth isn't addressed by the Warren Commission, or edited to give the sentence a proper cite. This is so, even though the information is verifiable, and the cite is to a reliable source. My point is not all editors would want to change their edit or accept the advice of other editors, even in the situation given above. So it's all good to say, let's work together but you have to deal with the fact that there are trolls in Wiki, and they must be dealt with differently and sometimes harshly. Ramsquire 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If I read your comments correctly, you are saying that “general knowledge is allowed but is always debatable”. This is a paradox.

What is considered "general knowledge" is always debatable. It's like how common sense, is rarely ever common. It is a paradox, but hey that's how it works in sometimes.Ramsquire 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors are not inviolable; we are here firstly to accept advice, work together, and to put cited and/or unanimously accepted information into articles.

Agreed.Ramsquire 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolls are not to be fed, or dealt with “differently” or “harshly” - they are to be blocked. andreasegde 12:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't blocking both harsh and different treatment? Ramsquire 17:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Harsh" is described as "extremely unkind or cruel". Blocking is a simple way of stopping people from contributing when they ignore the rules of Wikipedia. andreasegde 21:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Think of the context though. Isn't it kind of cruel to block someone from contributing in a forum that boasts "anyone can edit". Now in terms of going to prison, and being beaten, no blocking isn't harsh. But in the context of wiki, I can't think of a worst fate. Being told that anyone "but you (blocked user)" can edit is sort of harsh, even though the user often deserves the punishment and asks for it. But hey it's one of those things that reasonable people can differ on. Ramsquire 23:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn´t cruel to block someone; it is necessary, and simple. It´s the only way that Wikipedia can survive, because otherwise it would lead to anarchy/chaos. Editors can only contribute if they firstly accept, and agree, that they should work together. andreasegde 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

While we're talking about fact, I'd like to point out that while this article references the NOLA judge's refusal to accept testimony that Shaw had admitted to using the alias Clay Bertrand, "Clay Bertrand" does indeed redirect to Clay Shaw. I suppose that's okay since it's obviously a related topic and some accept Shaw and Bertrand to be the same person, but I just thought I'd point this out. --WarEagleTH 08:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Once again, it seems that many articles relating to Clay Shaw and the Garrison trial are being inundated with information which provides undue weight in support of Garrison. Particularly in this article, we have a memo, which never made it into the final HSCA report, being used to imply that Shaw was a CIA agent. As was discussed in previous arbitration, this is not an appropriate use of sources. Adding the claims made in a memo to the article as indisputable fact is original research. [7] I simply ask editors to remember that Wikipedia prefers the use of reliable secondary sources to verify information. Thank you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 00:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Content Removed?

There was some heavily cited content here, but now i can see it has been removed. As explained in the section //shaw was not an informer// on this talk page with citations, Shaw was CIA. But this peice of information has been deleted. I think it should be mentioned on the page.

"Shaw himself was a contact of the Domestic Contact Service's New Orleans office from 1948 to 1956 and introduced General Cabell, then Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, when he addressed the New Orleans Foreign Policy Association in May 1961”. LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON - General Counsel. Source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shawcia.htm

Also, the "five Agency clearance" is also missing from the page. Both of these missing things are present of the page of "trial of Clay Shaw". What is going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) 03:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"five Agency" clearance

Does anyone know what a "five Agency" clearance, such as the one Shaw received, did encompass in 1949? -- Enemenemu (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe an old short-hand for what became Top Secret? TS requires reinvestigation every 5 years. -Reticuli 2605:A000:C3C0:5500:ADF0:821C:7B00:924D (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Enemenemu: I dont think it was short hand, or synonym for top secret. This has been on my mind for last two years, couldnt find anything yet. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The clearance (which has been noted as "initial" in one document) was in relation to Project QKENCHANT. And what the clearance was for was likely giving Shaw the same clearance with other Federal agencies (i.e. the FBI, etc.) that he had with the CIA. (Whatever that was.) QKENCHANT itself was a project to "provide security approvals on non-Agency personnel and facilities". Which would tend to back the notion Shaw's relationship to the agency was not as an employee but as a informant. Just about everyone who is aware of the Domestic Contact Service (which is nonclandestine) has said that (given Shaw's travels) it would have been odd if the DCS had not contacted him. All this (of course) is pretty much irrelevant to his trial (which was (in my estimation) a travesty). Probably one of the most telling aspects of that trial (with regards to the CIA) is the fact that Garrison's team didn't cross examine Shaw on the CIA issue once. This is in spite of the fact Shaw's own lawyer opened the door by asking him if he had ever worked for the CIA. (Which gave them foundation to ask.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned quotes in "Aftermath" section

I removed the following text on 11/3/10 (citation formatting has been removed so that citations appear as inline text), which appeared verbatim (ie, in the following two paragraph block) at the end of the "Aftermath" section:

According to John McAdams, "The Clinton witnesses have been believed by otherwise skeptical investigators like the House Select Committee on Assassinations. During and since the Clay Shaw trial, they have told a consistent and apparently sincere story of Lee Oswald, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie visiting Clinton, Louisiana. But what if you look at the Clinton witnesses' early statements, before they were influenced by repeated questioning and repeated exposure to pictures of Oswald, Shaw, and Ferrie?"[cite web|url=http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm |title=New Orleans/Garrison JFK Assassination Investigation |publisher=Mcadams.posc.mu.edu |date= |accessdate=2010-09-17]

"Dave Reitzes has written the definitive debunking of the Clinton episode. He shows how what started out as (in Garrison's words) "a whisper in the air" was developed into an impressively consistent facade of Shaw trial testimony."[cite web|url=http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm |title=The Clinton Witnesses Linking Clay Shaw to Oswald and Ferrie - I |publisher=Mcadams.posc.mu.edu |date= |accessdate=2010-09-17]

These quotes are references to a very extensive JFK assassination website run by John C. McAdams, professor of political science at Marquette University. While the website may be a good survey and critique of JFK assassination conspiracy theories and facts, it does not seem to meet the qualifications of an encyclopedic reference. Furthermore, both of the above quotes (which were not part of more readable paragraphs) are concerned not with presenting a historical account of Clay Shaw's life after his JFK assassination trial, but rather with analyzing (and debunking) his supposed involvement in the conspiracy, which is irrelevent to the "Aftermath" section of an encyclopedic article on Clay Shaw, if not to the entire article itself. Perhaps if the quoted information above is found to be important to include on Wikipedia, it can be referenced from McAdams' forthcoming book (to be published 2011), or from other sources. Bosterson (talk) 11:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this Revert misleading? Aftermath: ......Americans (businessmen, journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS.

17:38, 23 October 2013‎ Gamaliel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,143 bytes) (-300)‎ . . (Undid revision 578382128 by Ruidoso (talk) WP:PRIMARY) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:37, 23 October 2013‎ Gamaliel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,443 bytes) (-1,166)‎ . . (→‎Further reading: rm unrelated or low quality sources) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:36, 23 October 2013‎ Gamaliel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,609 bytes) (-394)‎ . . (→‎External links: rm dubious links) (undo | thank)

I edited the Aftermath section because in a 1992 CIA document released in 1998, "in 1992, J. Kenneth McDonald, a CIA historian, wrote a memo based on his review of CIA records, released in 1998, stating Shaw had been a “highly paid CIA contract source.” Administrator Gamaliel promptly relegated this contraty opinion of Shaw's volunteer status to the basement and actually added this comment to his "undid revision" of my edit. "(→‎Further reading: rm unrelated or low quality sources)" Gamaliel, author of John C. McAdams took action to maintain this ".Americans (businessmen, journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS. (as volunteers)" in lieu of a determination made and written in 1992 by a CIA historian privy to review of classified information in CIA records, in a CIA document kept classified until 1998, available at a link I had edited in.

Will the information and supporting cites Gamaliel and John C. McAdams agree with be displayed prominently while equally or better sourced information is displayed less prominenlty in wikipedia articles, or not at all? Ruidoso (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I always thought this content is totally irrelevant: "By the mid-1970s, 150,000 Americans (businessmen, and journalists, etc.) had provided such information to the DCS." This statement feels like wikipedia is biased towards Shaw. Not encyclopaedic. usernamekiran (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC) usernamekiran (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Right Wing?

Come now, Communism is NOT right wing, we can all agree on that. It is left wing.

Changing it.

98.224.182.131 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit was done by myself. I am now a member of wikipedia... Anyhow, no, none of those people were right wing. Castro and his supporters were communists. That is left-wing. :)

Thetamericanist (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, now I have egg on my face. These guys were "Anti-Communist". But one has to understand something. Back in those days, "Anti-Communist" was not necessarily "right wing." Because one of the Presidents of the John Birch Society, Larry_McDonald was a Democrat. He is listed as a Conservative Democrat. Which, simply means, that he was anti-Communist. But, so was Walter_Reuther. As you all know Larry McDonald was shot down in a plane over Russia.

My apologies to those that I may have angered. But, I really doubt that these guys were hardened right wingers. I bet they were just anti-Communists. None of this matters, of course, because Oswald shot Kennedy, and yes, he was a communist sympathiser. Now, as to whether there was another shooter? I do not doubt that really. Castro was ticked at Kennedy over the bay of pigs incident. Who's to say he didn't have sympathisers do the job?

Just my thoughts.

Thetamericanist (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone was a Democrat didn't mean they were necessarily liberal. Conservative southern Democrats were a powerful political force up until the last few decades. Harry Truman and JFK were examples of liberal anti-communists; Strom Thurmond (who was originally a Democrat) and Larry McDonald were examples of conservative anti-communists. As for Shaw, a cursory search (I'm not interested in JFK assassination theories) indicates that some sources call him a JFK-supporting liberal while others claim he was in league with a bunch of right-wingers in a JFK assassination plot, so this part of the article could be clarified. --Ismail (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Clay Shaw was (without question) liberal. In speaking of Kennedy (in a 1969 Penthouse interview) he said: "What made Garrison's charge so outrageous to me was that I was a great admirer of Kennedy. I thought he had given the nation a new turn after the rather drab Eisenhower years, and that he was in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt--in the stream of liberal Presidents. I felt he was vitally concerned about social issues, which concerned me also. I though he had youth, imagination, style, and élan. All in all, I considered him a splendid President." IIRC, Shaw actually assisted the Kennedy campaign in New Orleans. The only "sources" that claim he was in "league with a bunch of right-wingers in a JFK assassination plot" are people with no credibility.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to put scare quotes around the word "sources." On the Trail of the Assassins may be filled with misleading and/or downright incorrect information, but it is nonetheless a "reliable" source by Wikipedia standards insofar as it pertains to claims made by JFK conspiracy theorists. My 2014 message was because looking up Shaw's politics online seemed to result in websites that either portray him as an ardent supporter of JFK or as collaborating with right-wing activists against him, and the article as it stood didn't throw any light on what his political views actually were outside of Jim Garrison's accusations, so anyone reading it would be forgiven if they came away with the impression he was to the right of Goldwater. Returning to the article years later, it at least cites the 1969 interview you mention. Bugliosi pointed out in his book that Shaw's associates likewise attested to his liberal politics. --Ismail (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - The final sentence under the "Death" section is a grammatical error. It implies the Supreme Court has no surviving relatives. Does it mean to say Shaw had no surviving relatives?The tamale (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Renaming "Aftermath" section?

I created the aftermath section a few months ago. I think it should be renamed to "Later CIA Declassificiation" or to something similar in meaning, like "Later CIA Revelations". usernamekiran (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC) usernamekiran (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Shaw's agency relationship

Another editor has tried to introduce something that claims Shaw was "a highly paid CIA contract source until 1956" a direct quote from his source.

However the cited source ('Trials of the Century') says no such thing.....it just says the Helms testified to the HSCA that Shaw worked as a "contract agent" for the CIA (i.e. the info he provided to the Domestic Contact service). This is mischaracterizing what Helms said. As is made clear in the article (via RS), this does not make him a "agent". The HSCA made clear that "such acts of cooperation should not be confused with an actual Agency relationship".Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Another editor is citing something from https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Shaw-as-informant.pdf as proof. First of all, the source is most likely not RS. And secondly, the source itself characterized Shaw as a "contract source". This of course could very well refer to his work with the DCS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In any case, if we do find a RS for the 1992 memo, this most likely should be added to the "Later disclosures" section. It seems inappropriate for the LEAD section (as a stand alone statement), as his actual agency relationship cannot be summarized by this one statement. The situation is more complex than that and would probably best be handled by hashing it out in the article.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is the CIA records are classified and there is no way of looking into the details of this specific contract, such as the amount of pay or the type of information provided. The important fact here is that the source does say that Helms testified to the HSCA that Shaw did work as a contract agent for the CIA. This has to be in the article. Maybe not in the lead, but the problem needs to be hashed out in detail in the article. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is what Helms said in this deposition: "one time, as a businessman, [Shaw] was one of the part-time contacts of the Domestic Contact Division". That is not a agent. That is more of a informant type relationship. As I said, a RS for the 1992 memo has not been cited yet. However, I am preparing a edit that I think/hope will satisfy all (and it will include the '92 memo.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Since Gamaliel is an admin, I will defer to his/her edits. Refreshing my memory on the subject....the internal CIA documents are contradictory on this point. There is that 1992 memo that says Shaw was "highly paid". But a 1967 internal report says "we have never remunerated [Shaw]". The specific forms of compensation seems to have involved reimbursement for trips and so on. (Within the scope of what you would expect for a DCS contact.) So if there is ever a consensus to include....we can sort it out then.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Was Clay Shaw gay?

Was Clay Shaw gay? The article states, "Garrison said that Shaw used the alias Clay Bertrand in New Orleans' gay society." For Garrison to even say that means that it implies or it was accepted that Clay Shaw was gay, but there is no Personal section for Clay Shaw - only a mention that he had nobody to inherit anything from him, i.e. no wife, or children. Was he gay? Sort of sounds like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.127.73 (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there are enough reliable sources to state that Shaw was gay (e.g. [8][9][10][11][12]) but I am unsure of how or where to introduce this to the article. Should it be briefly mentioned in the lede or in the Background section, or a Personal life section? I will bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Task forces/Person to see if I can get a few other editors involved. - Location (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's unquestionable he was gay. Garrison (incredibly) even speculated at one point that the assassination was a "homosexual thrill killing". (Since he thought Oswald & Ruby were both bi-sexual/gay.) I suppose the fact Shaw was gay may be worth a mention so that the Bertrand alias makes sense.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)