Talk:Jack Ruby/Archive 1

In comedy

Deleted the "In Comedy" section: it adds nothing to an understanding of Jack Ruby, and distracts from the rest of the article. Any significant influence by Ruby upon comedy could be placed in the Popular Culture section; any Ruby-related jokes are gratuitous at best. Steve Strummer (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In the popular culture section: NOFX reference

I don't think the reference to the NOFX song "The Man I Killed" being about Jack Ruby is correct. From what I've read, and my interpretation of the song, it is about someone (perhaps Fat Mike the lead singer) killing a world leader (most likely George W. Bush). Unless a good reference can be found to support the claim I don't think it is appropriate to have this claim listed under the "Popular Culture" section. I am going to remove it for the time being. AMo4 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nixon-Ruby connection

A number of sources claim that there was some sort of connection between Jack Ruby and Richard Nixon ([1][2] [3] [4]). Even if this is all conspiracy nonsense, it should be somehow addressed in this article so people looking for information on the connection can get the truth and won't continue on to some other less reliable source . --The_stuart 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (learn to spell...)

I've seen a physical piece of paper (which of course I couldn't yet scan) at the National Archives in the 70s. (My father was a good friend of E. Raymond Lewis, Librarian of the House of Representative IIRC, and I would hang out talking to whomever while they met.) Rubenstein had been subpeonaed by McCarthy's Subcommitee on Investigations; Nixon sent a note (which is what I saw) saying that Ruby had been working for him in a confidential capacity and it would be unacceptable to question him in public (I forget the exact wording); the subpoena was revoked. I think the paper might have been in the congressional record.

See WP:NOR, crank. Tempshill 07:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got a xerox copy of that document, and it has a zip code on the FBI letterhead. That's a bit of a problem, since there were no zip codes when it was supposedly was written. It's actually widely admitted to be a forgery. -- John McAdams

A case has been made for explaining the ZIP code -- that the one-page xerox is really a composite of 2 different documents. The top (on FBI letterhead) is a half-page undated typed note ("NOTE: Extra copy. Inclosure not verified by official report. Return to file. This is sensitive."), used as a transmittal sheet, stapled on top of full page underneath. Only the bottom half of the full sheet dated 1947 is seen. If this is correct, the presence of the ZIP code on the letterhead need not affect the dating of the bottom half. See discussion here. J496 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

First let me say I don't know how to add new sections on Wiki or Wiki Talk pages so I'm putting this here even though it's not related to Nixon; It's related to JFK's VP, Lyndon B. Johnson. I'm absolutely speechless after looking through this article that Johnson's name isn't mentioned, anywhere, considering he WAS Kennedy's running mate, and there's a very famous picture of Johnson smiling at a man off in the crowd who is winking back to Johnson as if they're sharing some secret joke *while Johnson has his hand on a bible and is being sworn in.* And I think it's a very possible motive for having JFK assassinated; he *would* and *did* advance to the presidency upon JFK's assassination.

Something else I found that I stumbled across using StumbleUpon.com was that (according to the articles i read, which were full of hotlinks to other information around the web) according to that author, all 4 presidents who'd been assassinated *were* assassinated because they opposed 'central' banking or 'artificial' banking (not sure what the proper term would be), that is, the fact that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned corporation which prints money for a fraction of the cost of the face values of what they print. Something to think about.

I'll go look through my stumbleupon history to see if I can find the article I'm talking about in the previous paragraph, but there are quotes by Lincoln and Kennedy talking about how they were against the 'Federal Reserve' for lack of a better term, I'm not sure what it was called historically, I doubt it was always called that.

Lastly, in case others haven't reached this same conclusion, it makes perfect sense that someone would have murdered Oswald before he was allowed to testify WHY he assassinated Kennedy; why on earth would anyone, let alone an ex-marine (from what I learned from Full Metal Jacket) go to such great lengths to assassinate a president? And from what I've gathered talking to other people about Oswald, he was none too bright, and it does make 'obvious' sense that he *was* part of a pair/group of conspirators who always assured him 'we won't let you go down alone,' which of course is exactly what ended up happening. In short, he was the perfect patsy BECAUSE of his apparent stupidity. Dave (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved "editing" discussion from article

This was originally part of the article itself:

Can someone clarify the next sentence for me? What is it trying to say? It was originally tacked onto the end of the previous paragraph:

They point to the fact that Ruby had only just arrived at the police station, having wired money to an employee at 11:17 AM, while Oswald's movement had been delayed, due to his last Dallas police/secret service interrogation and his putting on a black sweater.

• • It appears to mean that both Ruby and Oswald had been delayed by various incidents which could not have been predicted or pre-arranged; the obvious conclusion is that the assassination was an impulsive act on Ruby's part. If Oswald's last interrogation had lasted one minute more (or one minute less), or if Oswald had not taken the extra time to put on his black sweater, or if Ruby had not taken the extra time to wire money to an employee, then they would not have been in the same place at the same moment. True? Who knows.DS 13:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

However, Oswald was not moved until Ruby was already there. Perhaps Oswald was not going to be moved until Ruby was in place. The extra interrogation time and going back for the sweater could just be BS.

Wasn't there a movie "Ruby (film)Ruby"?

Was it based on historical facts?

Not according to Jack Ruby's brother. Movies shown in theatres are made to entertain and make a profit, not to educate the audience with boring things called facts. Kazuba (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, Jack Ruby's brother is a reliable source. He couldn't possibly have an ax to grind. LOL. BrandonTR (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture

In another Simpsons episode, Homer and Marge began to investigate the assassination of JFK (parodying the show "Dallas") to which Homer says to Marge, "I got it! Lee Harvey Oswald did it for the Jack Ruby!" To which marge replies, "Homer, Jack Ruby was a man." Homer then replies, "Damn! I was so close." — Irishalex92 20:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the apostrophe in The Simpsons? — Walloon 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

...Why the "Popular Culture" section at all? It's distracting, and diminishes the value of the article. I think that with the exception of entries like the "JFK" and "Ruby" films, all these inane references should be deleted. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Request another image

This article should have a profile or face shot of Ruby at the top with the shooting picture later on. 172.168.165.254 20:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ruby at Parkland

I thought that if Ruby was at Parkland then you needed to mention why that might be significant ie the bullet was found there. The orderly who found the bullet Darrell Tomlinson stated that it was not found on Connally's stretcher as you would expect, but another one unrelated to the assassination and reenacted his movements for a NOVA documentary. Of course the whole pristine Bullet thing is very suspicious and if you don't believe it was genuine then obviously somebody had to plant it there.

There is nothing to connect the bullet to Ruby other than pure conjecture. To mention the bullet here is pushing the POV that Ruby planted it, an idea which is pure fantasy. Gamaliel 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well the whole thing is speculation isn't it ? Was Ruby part of a conspiracy or not ?? We don't know. I thought it was a relevant fact that a reliable journalist was certain that he saw Ruby at Parkland. The only reason that might be important is that the Bullet was found there. Otherwise whether Ruby was at the hospital or not doesn't matter. If you just mention Kantor's testimony witout saying why it may matter then there's no point in saying it is there ?

Because it is speculation unsupported by any facts at all is precisely the reason that it does not belong in an encyclopedia article. There's a perfectly good reason he could have been at Parkland, assuming Kantor's story is true: Ruby was distraught at the president's death. Gamaliel 23:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes but he denied being at Parkland to the Warren Commission, why would he do that if he had a genuine reason to be there ? Just because it is an encyclopedia article does not mean you cannot say 'this has led people to speculate . .' or some such. If you aren't able to add speculation stating that it is speculation then you are very limited to what you can say. The important thing is to get as many facts as you can into the article to allow people to make up their own minds as to whether there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or not.

We don't just make a pile of crap and say "make up your own mind". We must make decisions about what facts and which speculation to include. This speculation is not important enough to include for a number of reasons: it is unsourced, it is not a widely cited theory, it has no supporting facts. Gamaliel 00:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I would agree with you about the pile of crap bit, but find the remainder of your last statement a little odd. What speculation is sourced ? You can say I sourced it if you like. I have heard this story lots of times and I think the movie JFK has a scene with Ruby planting the bullet. No supporting facts ? What about Kantor's testimony ? Anyhow you clearly don't want to put it in so let's just forget about it. I have some other stuff on Ruby that I'd like to add later though . . .

Sourced meaning it is attributed to a person or publication. Theories we make up on our own would fall under the Wikipedia:No original research prohibition. Does Kantor say that Ruby planted the bullet or that Ruby was merely there? One does not automatically follow from the other. Gamaliel 00:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

OK fair enough but I didn't make up the theory, I have heard it on many occasions from many sources. Like I say it's in the movie JFK. It's in the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, it's doubtless in many books, Crossfire I would expect, but I haven't got time to plough through them again. Have you not heard this theory before ? I would have thought it was just like saying it has been speculated that Ruby was part of a plot to silence Oswald. Everybody has heard that theory but I couldn't attribute it to any person or publication in particular.

JFK (the Oliver Stone movie) is not a scholarly source, is replete with distortions and is generally dismissed by serious historians (and many film critics) as fiction. The Men Who Killed Kennedy has a similar reputation. These are not encyclopedic citations. Truth be told, people who actually read the summaries in the Warren Commission report often learn to their surprise that most conspiracy buff theories are base on stuff the WC itself publicly examined at length and discarded. Wyss 17:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

NPoV?

This article does a thorough job of presenting the conspiracy buff PoV. Rather much the whole JFK assassination category is about the most embarassing series on the English WP. There is not a shred of evidence JR was involved in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK or murder LHO. As for his underworld contacts, in principle, try running a nightclub anywhere for ten years and avoid them. Wyss 01:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you make of Ruby saying he was part of a conspiracy then ? Is that not a shred of evidence ? Or is Ruby himself not a scholarly enough source ?

Ruby never every said he was part of any conspiracy. He certainly believed there was a conspiracy. Indeed he eventually came to believe there was a massive slaughter of Jews going on -- even on the floors of the county lockup below his cell. -- John McAdams —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.50.248.28 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

It's not enough to say that "Ruby never said he was part of a conspiracy." In fact, he very vehementied DENIED being part of any conspiracy. The only "conspiracy" he conceived of (in his later, brain-damaged days) was that he himself was being used by right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society to implicate Jews in a conspiracy to kill the President. Submitted for your approval. (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm just an outside visitor coming to this page from a Google search, but I wanted to say the article in its current form is pretty unreadable, like so bad that I was actually motivated to click on the discussion page and mention it. I know for the people that wrote this, it's your whole life, but nobody else really cares about or believes all these conspiracy theories. That's why conspiracy theorists are considered wacko. I just wanted to read about the guy that shot Oswald. 174.1.109.114 (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Original research

Under "NPoV" referenced immediately above there are several statements the author should reflect upon.

1--The first sentence states: "This article does a thorough job of presenting the conspiracy buff PoV."

Would the author care to reveal the offending language or did she simply drop into the article to chastise the editors with unsupported statements.

Then she uses the term "conspiracy buff" to apparantly describe the editors of the allged "PoV" article. Would she then, in turn, be called a "Lone Nut buff." If the term is being used in a denigrating way, shouldn't she stop doing so? It just creates bad feelings. Remember Wikipedia says to: "Be nice."

2-- The second sentence states: Rather much the (sic)whole JFK assassination catagory is about the most embarassing series on the English WP."

I am sure the editors of the article are pleased with this keen insight by Wyss, and the pleasant way it is presented. Again, "Be nice."

3--The third sentence states: "There is not a shred of evidence JR was involved in any conspiracy to assassinate JFK or murder LHO."

Well, the word has just come down and Wyss apparantly believes that settles the matter.

Noted.

4--The fourth sentence states: "As for his [Jack Ruby's] underworld contacts, in principle, try running a nightclub anywhere for ten years and avoid them."

Now Wyss is an expert on night club owners, and their contacts with organized crime. She has even reduced it to a "principle."

Isn't this original research that is to be avoided? RPJ 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Mytwocents" is deleting out properly referenced material again

The person calling himself "Mytwocents" must read the rules of this website.

His eratic deletions of carefully researched and referenced material put in the article by others is, almost at random, in a wholesale fashion. This violates the rule of this website.

Mytwocents still doesn't understand that he cannot delete material from the article merely because he doesn't share the viewpoint.

The basic rule of this web page is: All significant points of view must be included, and reader then gets to choose what he or she wants to believe. "Mytwocents cannot delete material just because he doen't agree with the viewpoint.

"Mytwo cents" deleted this material from the artilce that is taken from the report issued by the House Selcect Assassination Committee:

Jack Ruby knew Sam and Joe Campisi since 1947, and had been seen with them on many occasions. In 1963, Campisi were leading figures in the Dallas underworld. The Campisi Brothers were lieutenants of Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss who had reportedly talked of killing the President. [5](this citation doesn't support that Carlos Marcello, was a Mafia boss or talked of killing the President Mytwocents)

A day before President Kennedy was murdered, Ruby went to Joe Campisi's restaurant.(to eat? Mytwocents) [[6] Several days later, after Jack Ruby was put in jail for murdering Lee Oswald, Campisi visited him in jail. [7] (for 10 minutes, at Ruby's request Mytwocents)

There is no basis for deleting the material and therefore, "Mytwocents" merely deletes without comment. This indicates "Mytwocents" is knowingly violating the web site rules.

Some of the believers in the Warren Report seemed compelled to supress information with which they disagee. "Mytwocents" acts as if he is on a mission from a higher authority, and doesn't care what the website rule prohibit.

RPJ 20:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RPJ, your citations don't support the statements. The whole sections you add to pages are NPOV extentions of conspiracy sites. Then you chastise and belittle other editors for being ignorant and breaking wikirules. BTW, when I rv a page, I leave comments on the edit summary.

Mytwocents 21:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ruby and the Campisi brothers

Here is how it can be stated:

A PBS investigation into the connections between Ruby and Dallas organized crime figures resulted in it reporting following:

Jack Ruby knew Sam and Joe Campisi since 1947, and had been seen with them on many occasions. In 1963, Campisi were leading figures in the Dallas underworld. The Campisi Brothers were lieutenants of Carlos Marcello, the Mafia boss who had reportedly talked of killing the President. [8]

At the time of the Kennedy assassination, Ruby was close enough to the Campisi's to ask them to come see Ruby once he was arrested for shooting Lee Oswald. [9] A day before Kennedy was assassinated, Ruby went to Joe Campisis's restraunt. [10]

RPJ 08:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I daresay, that edit would work. It states the facts and stays NPOV. Mytwocents 05:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is here no discussion of Myer Lansky and possible Ruby ties to the Jewish mob? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.202.155 (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jews being slaughtered

There an article or book or something that mentions this? It's interesting. --Jeffrey 18:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Total dispute tag

Although the Campisi mentions seem solid. The info linking Ruby to Capone is unsourced and the extent of his mob ties is disputed. Please cite the information and remove the tag once citations are provided. Ramsquire 23:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jack Ruby and his dogs

I have moved these dog molesting charges to the talk page. They are irrelevant for the biography of the man. I think we can paint an accurate picture of the man without these sick, unsubstanciated stories. But if any one wants to argue the point, they can do it here.

In the James Ellroy novel American Tabloid, which tells a fictionalized account of the Kennedy assassination, Jack Ruby is featured as a supporting character who, it is intimated, has sex with dogs. Ruby's unnatural behaviour with dogs is discussed in Case Closed by Gerald Posner. Citing the Warren Report, Posner explained:

At the club, there were rumors that Ruby had an unnatural relationship with the dogs, something he vehemently denied...One of his Chicago friends, Harry Goldbaum, last visiting Ruby in August 1963. They spent an hour in the Carousel's rear office, where Ruby was taking care of three small dogs for a friend. According to Goldbaum, Ruby promised to show him something interesting and began masturbating one of the male dogs, and only stopped when Goldbaum told Ruby it was making him sick...The Warren Commission dealt with his affection for dogs under a separate heading in its final report, but downplayed the more bizarre aspects of the relationship. (Case Closed, pp.358-359(ff)

Mytwocents 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and put the reference to American Tabloid back into the article, but without the followup. Whether or not the man fucked dogs right in their dogg butts is true isn't important. However, it is an example of Jack Ruby being a character in pop culture. 24.218.218.9 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Death of Oswald

Is there any video footage I could see of the shooting? Chao9999 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe there was an ATM nearby and we can get the camera footage. Or maybe Ruby's friend was filming it on his cellphone and put it up on youtube. 12.155.141.132 01:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, at YouTube. — Walloon 05:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What Ruby told to his defense lawyer

A censor removed a link [11] to authentic statements of Ruby to his defense lawyer William Kunstler, published in Kunstler's autobiography. These statements are not irrelevant in the present context and there is no rational reason for their removal.

• Then the source should be Kunstler's autobiography, not RedWiki. See Wikipedia:Verifiability Jemather 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Errors

1. “March 25, 1911.” Researchers note there are two conflicting birth certificates for Rubinstien. It would be a accurate to simply state “1911”.

Actually for WP purposes, we should simply state the one tied to the more reliable source. Ruby himself used that date on several occasions. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

2. “…convicted of murder and sentenced to a federal penitentiary, where he spent the remainder of his life.” This makes it sound as if Ruby was sentenced to jail time when in fact he was sentenced to death. He died in Parkland Hospital ironically the same emergency room as JFK and Oswald. While this issue is addressed in later paragraphs the introductory synopsis should be reworded.

Disagree, and since it is addressed later on, there is no need to change the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

3. “…he yelled at Oswald, "You killed my President, you rat!" What is the source for this? Ruby said, “Son of a bitch!” when he shot Oswald, according to the testimony of the two closest officers, Don Ray Archer and William Harrison.

Well you got one, there should be some citation there. BTW-- you need sources for your suggestion as well. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

4. “Ruby stated that he shot Oswald to avenge Kennedy.” When? What is the source? This is the very first time I have ever heard the claim that Ruby confessed to shooting Oswald.

5. “Later, however, he claimed he shot Oswald on the spur of the moment when the opportunity presented itself, without considering any reason for doing so.” Again, what is the source that Ruby confessed?

The Warren Commision for both 4 and 5. Again, it should be sourced in the article. But then again, you probably going to dispute using the WC as a source. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

6. There should be more space given to possible intelligence ties. Namely Johnny Roselli, Sam Giancana, and Santos Trafficante and there work with the CIA to assassinate Castro.

WP:ATT, or more accurately WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Bring reliable sources to the table and we'll discuss. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Oswald’s murder should be detailed as to how Ruby gained access to the garage and the Warren Commission’s contradictory conclusion that he entered via the ramp.

Same as above. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Ruby’s alleged presence in Dealey Plaza should be mentioned.

No reliable sources to support this alleged presence. Therefore it can't go in here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

9. Ruby’s presence at Parkland Hospital after the assassination and denial there of should be mentioned.

Same as #6 and #7. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ramsquire

It only took four postings before you conceded defeat on this page by blocking it. I did not even have to use another IP address.

At least we found some consensus on the opening synopsis and pop culture references.

Ruby’s SOB comment was witnessed by officers Don Ray Archer (WC vol. XII p.395) and William Harrison (WC vol. XII p.234). While I have read varied accounts of what Ruby said in numerous JFK books, they never cite a source. Archer and Harrison are the only two to actually testify as to what Ruby said and no other witness contradicted their testimony.

Why did you take out his confession to Archer? It is the only evidence of his confession. This would back up your theory that he admitted his guilt.

You say he confessed to the Commission and I would refute it but if you can cite a source for Ruby publicly confessing to law enforcement or the media during testimony or interview it deserves to be in the article. In his WC testimony Ruby does remark that he was sickened by the idea of Jackie attending a trial. But never confesses. Otherwise your synopsis of his testimony in very good which is why I did not change it.

It is difficult to expand his mob and intelligence connections in context without getting side tracked into AM/Lash and Operation Mongoose. It is better to leave it out of Ruby’s actual biography.

Ruby’s alleged presence at Dealey Plaza deserves to be added to the story because it shows his interest in the assassination early on. And shows the Warren Commission’s ignorance in covering it up. As I objectively stated there is no 100% proof the man at Dealey Plaza was really him.

His presence at Parkland should also be mentioned. Wilma May Tice’s testimony is in vol. XV p.388 and a further report about her threats is in vol. XXV p.224. Seth Kantor’s testimony is in vol. XV p.71. HSCA’s conclusion is on page 193 of their report.

Ruby’s access to police garage is important because as HSCA states it cuts to the issue of a conspiracy to kill Oswald. Their comment is on page 187 of their report.

The Warren Commission’s paradox theory shows their corruption. My source for the Griffin Warren confrontation is the 1999 A&E documentary ‘The Warren Commission.’ (CWC)

Editing Wikipedia is not about reverting until you defeat another editor. You show your lack of understanding of the nature of Wikipedia and its policies and you will continue to be block until you can adhere to them. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To Anon:

1. I didn't lock the page.
2. Only an admin can lock a page.
3. The locking of a page is not a victory or defeat for anyone. It is to stop edit warring and vandalism.
4. I did not make any of the edits or deletions you reference. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gamaliel’s censorship is a victory because anyone whom researches the JFK assassination will know the issue is so controversial it cannot be discussed.

The errors and facts I corrected in the article are not, “edit warring” or “vandalism”. (CWC)

Please do not accuse Gamaliel of things he did not do. Are you RPJ? If you are, you know better than that. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from signing your posts CWC. There is an actual user here with that name, and I'm sure he does not want to be confused with you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Prosecution and conviction

This section appears to be out of order, chronologically.

Why is his lineage so important

A whole paragraph about his father? When I added the ancestry of Lee H.Oswald, most of it was deleted as not being relevant?LHO was certainly more important historically than that pimp Ruby15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

I don't see a paragraph about his father, if there was it should have been removed. However, one article has nothing to do with the other, as they evolve separately. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Early life

Should the early life section really cover until he is 48 years old? Ajk91 (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Snafu

According to Ruby's brother, Earl Ruby, who lectured in the Detroit, MI area the killing was a snafu. Jack told his brother he didn't like the smile on Oswald's face and only meant to cause Oswald physical pain and suffering, not kill him. This was the reason he shot Oswald in the abdomen. It was a bad shot and was fatal. This statement was met by hostility from a member of the audience who said that cannot be true. "If it is true why don't you write a book about it?". Earl Ruby softly replied he did write a book about his brother and the Oswald incident. It sold at K-mart for a dollar. No one was interested enough in Earl's mundane story to buy them. Kazuba (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The band?

Shouldn't this section be removed? I don't see what it contributes to anything here.

"Public assassination" heading

I propose changing this to "Murder of Oswald". "Assassination" is usually reserved for murders done on political or ideological grounds. It's not clear what Ruby's real motive was so I think "murder" is a more neutral term. Thoughts? – ukexpat (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

hjhj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.87.203 (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Carousel Club"

Why is there no mention of the Carousel Club at 1312 1/2 Commerce St Dallas TX. which Ruby owned and operated at the time of the killings?

Birth date discrepancy

The date listed next to his name in the introduction and the date given within the body of the article do not match. Embokias (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Rubtenstein

Jack Rubestein redirects you to Jacob Rubenstein but their is no mention of Jacob anywhere in the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.95.97 (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Prosecution and conviction 2

Why is there no information regarding any detainment, trial or imprisonment of Jack Ruby on Wikipedia? Wikipedia’s article should seek to provide answers for a logical set of criteria that answer questions relating to Jack Ruby his conduct and its consequences; his trial, appeal and death. Ruby murdered a person in cold blood who was at the time in the custody of the state.

“He successfully appealed the conviction and death sentence” is a totally inadequate statement in the context of Ruby’s actions, their ramifications and the possible lack of legal processes and investigation he underwent. It should be further reinforced within the article that for his crimes he received a ‘two day’ murder trial that resulted in a conviction and that this trial was convened very quickly (apparently within 2 days of the Kennedy assassination). The speed of this investigation (if any) and trial seems worthy of further comment in consideration as to the nature of his crime and its ramifications and the potenital for there have been a significant travesty of justice. Was this case fast tracked as a result of political pressure? How thoroughly was it conducted? From a due diligence position did the police even have time to search his residence in this busy period? Did evidence exist that was overlooked that may have led to ulterior motives for his actions?

Regarding his two day trial and incarceration I would expect Wikipedia (at a minimum) provide information to answer the following reasonable questions: Was he held in remand immediately following his arrest? Was he released on bail; if so on what undertaking? What were the legal charges he faced? What was his plea? Where was the trial set and who approved the fast tracking of the trial? Who was his representative council? Who was the presiding judge? What type of trial was it? What was its log number for further research? On what basis did he successfully appeal the charges? Was he released pending a new trial? What was the total time he spent imprisoned as a result of his actions?

Regarding the actual circumstances of his crime I would expect Wikipedia (at a minimum) provide information to answer the following reasonable questions that through the court should have become a part of public record. There should be some information regarding: How it was possible for Ruby to get so close to his victim with a weapon? What security systems were in place at the time and how did they fail? Who was responsible for security at the time and how was it generally managed? What systems had been imposed to cater for any special circumstances? Who issued security passes (if any)? How many locked doors or check points were required to be penetrated to gain access to the prisoner from the outside? Were any charges laid regarding culpability or negligence raised (or any other actions taken) against any other person as a result of the security breach? i.e. who was demoted or replaced? What (if any) procedures were recommended or taken to avert this type of action occurring in a supposed ‘secured area’ again in future (if any)? Were there matters relating to jurisdiction that compounded control issues at the location?

Regarding Jack Ruby’s health and potentially premature death I would expect Wikipedia to provide a brief commentary regarding : When did his symptoms first appear? Are there any interesting specifics regarding the illness itself i.e. was this hereditary? Was there deemed to be any contributing factor or exposure for this illness at the time relating to exposure to poisons or other forms of toxicology?

Regarding Jack Rubys motives: while verifiable quotations are obviously preferable the article currently contains subjective descriptions and rely on here-say regarding personality and capability. I would expect some discussion as to the plausibility that Ruby may have conducted an assassination (either willfully or other wise) under the behest of people or persons unknown. Statements regarding his apparent lack of applicability to conspiracy regarding his personality have no basis of fact and should be removed.

The article should clearly retain the the non-emotive fact that Jack Ruby was a cold blooded murderer who was captured in the act of murdering a man held in police custody. In taking that life he also took that mans right to a fair trial and his action condemned perhaps an innocent man and his name to immortality. In murdering the prime suspect of a heinous crime prior to trial, Jack Ruby denied the public its rightful insight in to a substantially historical event. As a result, Jack Ruby is therefore largely responsible for the unresolved nature of the Kennedy Assassination case and the exhausting conspiracy theories that have appeared to fill the information or logic gaps left behind as a result of their being no trial. The conspiracy theory regarding the assignation of Kennedy gained much more momentum as a result of Ruby’s action and his victim’s public statements regarding being ‘a patsy’. The propagation of further conspiracy theories are the direct ramification of Jack Ruby’s actions. It would appear problematic given the extenuating circumstances that surround the entire affair that it is more likely that some type of conspiracy in fact existed

In my summary and opinion, the current information on Jack Ruby and its representation in Wikipedia is in adequate and misleading. Its lack of information has the potential to further fuel conspiracy debate. Additionally, the article seems to concede a need for detail due to the fact that his victim was Oswald and in that the article holds bias and or prejudice towards Oswald. I believe regardless of his victims identity the facts should be clearly stated.

The current inference on Wikipedia is that additional detail is not relevant or thought unimportant in the overall context of who Jack Ruby was and the resultant consequences of his actions. Wiki should therefore make efforts to more clearly indicate the historical results of Jack Ruby actions Coolazu (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Coolazu

Did you actually read the article and the linked article Ruby v. Texas? If you think they lack detail or require improvement, why don't you boldy edit them (with reliable sources) - Wikipedia articles don't create themselves, this is a community project! – ukexpat (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki and allowed myself a bit of a rave! Firstly I do not have access to the information I believe the article should contain however maybe somebody who reads my comments does and if they should have a similar interest, means and willingness to conduct the required the research can then look to add or contribute to the overall scope and completeness of the article. No i did not see any link to Ruby v Texas and appreciate the direction, on perusal, I still could not see any link in the original Jack Ruby article. I must admit I do not see why Ruby v Texas is a seperate page to Jack Ruby. If Ruby hadnt killed anyone he wouldnt have a page at all. Regarding Ruby v Texas, this article also does not indicate if Jack Ruby undertook any days incarceration at all which strikes me as a little odd. I hope that others agree with these observations and are able to insert additional information re my comments here and above. I have read some comments regarding other edit/discussion pages and it seems the world of Wiki can be rather anal at times. I do not wish to offend sensibilities, merely point out where i believe enhancements are warranted if someone is privy to the required information. Regards. Coolazu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.41.181.93 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Postal interview

See http://www.crimemagazine.com/why_jack_ruby_killed_lee_harvey_oswald This mentions the hastily arranged interview with Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes. Oswald caused a further unexpected delay when he asked for different clothes. If Ruby had any important shooting to do, he would not have wasted time with the sending of money by Western Union.

Removing Category:American assassins

...because no one talks about the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald. MartinSFSA (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Vague intro

Ruby killed Oswald, right? That fact is not disputed, as far as I can see. Then the intro should say "Jack Ruby was the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald", not "Jack Ruby was an American nightclub operator in Dallas, Texas", as though that was what he was famous for. The intro goes on to say "He was convicted of the November 24, 1963 murder of Lee Harvey Oswald", as though the successful appeal cast doubt on the fact that he killed him. I think a re-write is in order. Scolaire (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: first sentence

In the first sentence of this article, there should not be a comma after the year 1963.Cdg1072 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

TI flight

I and others have reverted several insertions of material implying that Ruby had a CIA clearance because he appeared on a flight that required CIA clearance, as witnessed by Mel Barney, a former Texas Instruments manager. Mr. Barney has published an e-book book entitled Four Wars: How America's Neglected Infrastructure is Stealing Your Future, which includes this revelation ("Proof Inside: Jack Ruby had a CIA Clearance"), and which appears to be self-published. User KennedyResearch has been adding this as a named account and as an IP: the book doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and the account is in any case hearsay unsupported by any other source. As such, I don't see it as usable, and it is to some extent a promotion of Mr. Barney's e-book and theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Death of Jack Ruby - conflict between summary and infobox

The summary at the top of the article states that Jack Ruby died of lung cancer. The infobox states he died of a pulmonary embolism. The article states that the embolism was a secondary result of the lung cancer. I really think the first two should be brought to agree with each other; perhaps directing the reader to read the section on his death for more details? 74.79.62.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

I'm going to continue to remove citations including the widely-disputed television documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, which was the subject of multiple lawsuits and on-air retractions and is not accepted by anyone reputable as reliable or scholarly. It does not meet RS criteria and User:BrandonTR has made no effort beyond a mere assertion to prove that this series meets that criteria. Complaints about that citation appear on this page as far back as 2005, which is why they have been repeatedly removed over the years. It is up to the editor who wishes to include this material to demonstrate both that it meets the criteria and how circumstances have changed since 2005 that suddenly justify changing the consensus to remove. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel says that The Men Who Killed Kennedy documentary is "not accepted by anyone reputable as reliable or scholarly," as if we are supposed to just take his word for it. In fact, the documentary has been shown on BBC stations in Europe, as well as the American station A & E and The History Channel. The History Channel stopped showing the documentary after the Lyndon Johnson family whined loudly about one of the episodes implicating Johnson and threatened to sue.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about reliable sources:

Biased or opinionated sources

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

"Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." BrandonTR (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with neutrality and everything to do with accuracy and reliability. Appearing on television does not automatically make a film a reliable source. You've provided nothing to counter the utter rejection of this film by the scholarly community. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, you've provided no evidence that this film has been rejected by the "scholarly community." You should know by now that scholars are deeply divided on almost every aspect of the JFK assassination case -- thus the need to present different viewpoints, as per Wikipedia policy. BrandonTR (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's up to you to demonstrate that this film meets the requirements of WP:RS if you wish this citation to be in the article. You have yet to make any attempt to do this beyond mere assertion. Gamaliel (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel is again talking in circles. Please refer to my previous statement. BrandonTR (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned this dispute in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy. Location (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph based on this documentary gives undue weight to what is a very dubious claim that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital. I'm also skeptical of the notion that Ruby was manoeuvred past compliant police so as to shoot Oswald. In fact he had attended the police station a day earlier - with a gun - seen Oswald and taken no action. Ruby was on good terms with the local police and his presence was unremarkable, especially when many unfamiliar media people were also present. There was no need to smuggle Ruby in - he just walked in, as he had done many times previously. --Pete (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you were to actually take the time to read through the sources, you would see that the claim that Ruby was at Parkland was not just made by Washington correspondent Seth Kantor in the documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Kantor made the same claim in his own book, Who was Jack Ruby?, and also in testimony before the HSCA. The HSCA decided that Kantor was more likely to be telling the truth than was Jack Ruby (imagine that?). Anyway, it's not for you or I to decide who we believe in this matter. However, presenting both Kantor's and Ruby's account is obviously important. BrandonTR (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the citation from the evil, conspiratorial documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy ... just too much whining to listen to. BrandonTR (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only "whining" if you don't like what others are saying, but the removal is an improvement. Location (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you've decided to be mature about this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just that I now realize that I have to deal with a lot of people who are immature. When you have a group that takes everything that the Warren Commission said as gospel, then you know you are dealing with a group of true believers that is going to immediately discount such things as the eyewitness testimony of a White House correspondent, and instead take the "honorable" Jack Ruby's testimony as the accurate version of events. BrandonTR (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You've been dealing with these article long enough that you know which statements should require attribution. I don't care if the article states 1) that Kantor said he saw Ruby at Parkland Hospital, 2) the WC didn't believe Kantor, and 3) the HSCA did believe Kantor, but it should at least have proper attribution for who said what and who believed what AND it should tie it in with the relevance to Ruby's alleged links to organized crime. If the tie-in is that Ruby in Parkland tampering evidence per the mob's instructions, that is a conspiracy theory put forth by Kantor and that should be down in the section pertaining to conspiracy allegations. Location (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I was giving attribution. You and your group of true believers just didn't like one of the sources. By the way, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was spot on when he recently said, "My father believed the Warren Report was a shoddy piece of craftsmanship."

There was no attribution when the challenged source was included. Good job including it. Regarding RFK/RFK Jr: what is the relevance to this article? If you have some issue with information cited to the WC, attribution can be provided or you can take it to WP:RSN. Location (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to start paying attention. Before I added "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" source, I already had sourced the material to Kantor's Warren Commission testimony, to Kantor's book and to the HSCA Report regarding the matter. BrandonTR (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I will rephrase: There was no in-text attribution when the challenged source was included. Sorry if I confused you. Location (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WC and HSCA on Ruby's link to organized crime and/or a conspiracy

For future reference...

WC on Ruby's link to organized crime:

Based on its evaluation of the record, however, the Commission believes that the evidence does not establish a significant link between Ruby and organized crime. Both State and Federal officials have indicated that Ruby was not affiliated with organized criminal activity.400 And numerous persons have reported that Ruby was not connected with such activity.401 p. 801

WC on Ruby's link to a conspiracy:

Rumors of a connection between Ruby and Oswald have proved groundless, while examination of Ruby's background and associations, his behavior prior to the assassination, and his activities during the November 22-24 weekend has yielded no evidence that Ruby conspired with anyone in planning or executing the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald. Whatever the legal culpability of Jack Ruby for his act of November 24, the evidence is persuasive that he acted independently in shooting Oswald. p. 373

HSCA on Ruby's link to organized crime:

The evidence available to the committee indicated that Ruby was not a "member" of organized crime in Dallas or elsewhere, although it showed that he had a significant number of associations and direct and indirect contacts with underworld figures, a number of whom were connected to the most powerful La Cosa Nostra leaders. Additionally, Ruby had numerous associations with the Dallas criminal element. p.149

HSCA on Ruby's link to a conspiracy:

The scientific evidence available to the committee indicated that it is probable that more than one person was involved in the President's murder. That fact compels acceptance. And it demands re-examination of all that was thought to be true in the past. Further, the committee's investigation of Oswald and Ruby showed a variety of relationships that may have matured into an assassination conspiracy. Neither Oswald nor Ruby turned out to be "loners," as they had been painted in the 1964 investigation. Nevertheless, the committee frankly acknowledged that it was unable firmly to identify the other gunman or the nature and extent of the conspiracy. p. 180

The committee concluded that the FBI's investigation into a conspiracy was deficient in the areas that the committee decided were most worthy of suspicion organized crime, pro- and anti-Castro Cubans, and the possible associations of individuals from these areas with Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby. In those areas in particular, the committee found that the FBI's investigation was in all likelihood insufficient to have uncovered a conspiracy. p. 242

- Location (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

And let's not forget this gem from the HSCA:

Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, in that it involved at least some premeditation. Similarly, the committee believed it was less likely that Ruby entered the police basement without assistance, even though the assistance may have been provided with no knowledge of Ruby's intentions.... The committee was troubled by the apparently unlocked doors along the stairway route and the removal of security guards from the area of the garage nearest the stairway shortly before the shooting… There is also evidence that the Dallas Police Department withheld relevant information from the Warren Commission concerning Ruby's entry to the scene of the Oswald transfer. pp. 157-158

- BrandonTR (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume your inference from that statement is that Ruby and the DPD were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. My inference is that the DPD were a bit ashamed that they didn't do a good job of protecting Oswald. Good thing we don't build Wikipedia articles by cherry-picking information that supports our inferences (i.e. WP:OR). Location (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

People should be free to draw their own inferences. This kind of information should not be suppressed or withheld. We don't need self-appointed guardians of officialdom to see to it that we the people don't draw inferences that the guardians of officialdom do not approve of.

- BrandonTR (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The HSCA did not conclude that Ruby was involved in the assassination, but you want to cherry-pick information to suggest that he was. That is not letting people "be free to draw their own inferences"; that is leading them to your inference. If you have an analysis or interpretation of those findings in a reliable source that states that the HSCA report indicates that Ruby was involved in an assassination, then that could be placed in the "Alleged conspiracies" section here, or in the main JFK conspiracy article. Location (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If you go back to the section of the article that the material pertains to, you see that it relates to the HSCA opinion that Ruby's killing of Oswald was not the spontaneous act that Ruby alleged it to be. As evidence that Ruby's action "involved at least some premeditation" (the HSCA words), the HSCA gave evidence that Ruby had gotten into position to kill Oswald with what the HSCA described as "assistance." BrandonTR (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Leaving a trail for others, you are referring to the HSCA report:

Based on a review of the evidence, albeit circumstantial, the committee believed that Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, in that it involved at least some premeditation.(125) Similarly, the Committee believed that it was less likely that Ruby entered the police basement without assistance, even though the assistance may have been provided with no knowledge of Ruby's intentions. The assistance may have been in the form of information about plans for Oswald's transfer or aid in entering the building or both.7 (126) p. 157

I don't have a problem with the article indicating that Ruby alleged the act to be spontaneous, and that the HSCA thought some premeditation was involved. The "assistance" aspect is tricky in that the same section notes that Ruby was known to be "friendly" with members of the DPD. To me, this suggests that they simply could have been loose-lipped about Oswald's movements or given Ruby more leeway than they would other citizens. Location (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Spot on. If there is no evidence for something, we should not suggest that there is. We know Ruby was friendly with the cops. And with crime figures. Find me a nightclub owner who doesn't have relationships with both sides. But we should not hint that there was anything more to it than that. Giving undue weight to material that suggests there was a conspiracy is against wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The HSCA states: "The assistance may have been in the form of information about plans for Oswald's transfer or aid in entering the building or both." I think that what the HSCA is driving at is that any form of assistance implies an element of planning, which is the opposite of spontaneity. What the HSCA did make clear is that they weren't buying the idea that Ruby's killing of Oswald was a spontaneous act. BrandonTR (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but there is a difference between premeditation and conspiracy. Location (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

In regard to this matter, I can't recall the HSCA referring to conspiracy. However, the HSCA did say that it didn't buy Ruby's statement that his act was spontaneous. Regarding, what else the HSCA didn't buy, that seems open to interpretation. It's obvious that there's a lot of ambiguity in the HSCA report. One of the HSCA staff members, Gaeton Fonzi, is on record as saying he thought that Chief Council Blakey engaged in a partial cover-up. Fonzi even wrote a book about it. BrandonTR (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is likely enough coverage in reliable sources to start an article on Gaeton Fonzi (e.g. [12], [13], [14]). Location (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

BrandonTR: I've restored the NPOV tag to the "Alleged links to organized crime" section. This material is given an inordinate amount of weight to the article. It should be condensed and placed in a section about alleged conspiracy links. Location (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the material in this section pertains to the title's heading, "Alleged links to organized crime." The material in this section makes no reference to conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does. It explicitly references Kantor's suggestion that the mob placed Ruby in a position to kill Oswald. And the entire reason the HSCA looked for links was to determine if Ruby was involved in a conspiracy. Location (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Kantor's interpretation is a small paragraph in this section full of material. The Warren Commission and the HSCA uncovered most of the evidence presented in this section. The HSCA did not believe the evidence indicated a conspiracy by an organized crime group, but left open the possibility that individual members of some crime group may have participated in a conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that most of the information here was dug up by those attempting to discover whether or not Ruby was involved in a conspiracy. Location (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So the fact that the Warren Commission and the HSCA investigated Ruby's background to determine whether Ruby was lying about his motive, or whether others were involved, means that what these committees found out should not be included in the Ruby article? Using that logic, the information that the Warren Commission and the HSCA dug up regarding Oswald's visit to Mexico should not be included in the Oswald article as it might indicate conspiracy -- in this case a Cuban or Russian conspiracy. BrandonTR (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the issue is 1) that there is an inordinate amount of weight given to "alleged links to organized crime" and 2) that the material related to a the investigation of a possible conspiracy should be placed in the appropriate section. Location (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Inordinate amount of weight? As I read it, just the facts are being reported. If you want to put the Kantor stuff in the conspiracy section, do so and quit whining about it. BrandonTR (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Who's whining? I started a thread indicating that I was reverting your removal of the NPOV tag and provided an explanation for it. Location (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes ... just not a good explanation. It's a shame that under the "Criticism" section, stronger arguments can't be made that Jack Ruby was just "coincidentally" involved with organized crime elements -- just to "balance out" the article's previous section. But that's not the fault of those who have provided the organized crime evidence. Rather, it's illustrative of the poverty of the counter-argument. BrandonTR (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Approximately 40% of the article is devoted to Ruby's alleged ties to organized crime. Seems that I'm spot on with WP:WEIGHT, but I can understand that you don't agree with it. I agree that the point-counterpoint bit of multiple "Criticism" sections needs to be fixed. Location (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Seth Kantor

BrandonTR, I've addressed the Kantor material in two ways. First, I took his testimony, including the WC's and HSCA's views of it, and placed it into a newly created "Timeline" section. (In regards to this, the HSCA refers to "the opinion of Burr W. Griffin" at the end of p. 158. To briefly expand on the HSCA's reasons for disagreeing with the EC, I could use your help in locating the "Interview of Burt W. Griffin, Nov. 20, 1978" referenced in footnote 141 on p. 620. Thanks!) Second, I placed the information that pertains to his conspiracy allegations in the appropriate section. Hopefully you won't find any of this too objectionable. Location (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've added a NPOV to the "Criticism" section. The Gerald Posner citation is confused and devoid of context or meaning. The Tony Zoppi reference also lacks context and gives no citation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonTR (talk • contribs) 08:52, 25 March 2013‎ (UTC)

The entire sub-section is awkwardly put together and is part of the problem of the main section. Per the gist of Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, multiple "Criticism" sections should be avoided. I am removing it from the article, but preserving its content here for future reference. Location (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wilma Tice

I have removed the following from the section entitled "Alleged links to organized crime":

Witness Wilma Tice also said that she saw Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital during the time Kennedy was being treated there. Called to testify before the Warren Commission, Tice said that she received an anonymous phone call from a man telling her "…that it would pay me to keep my mouth shut."

The material states nothing about organized crime. I have no objections to placing it in the conspiracy section provided there is a secondary source linking it to a conspiracy. Otherwise cherry-picking primary source information is a violation of WP:OR. Location (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible Grammar Issue

I am not familiar with the law/court vocabulary usage, but if I'm not mistaken there is a problem with this sentence in the first paragraph.

Convicted of Oswald's murder, Ruby appealed his conviction and death sentence and was granted a new trial.GuyHimGuy (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)