Talk:Antonio Veciana

The use of OpEdnews

We don't use that source anywhere on Wikipedia because it is a self-published source that makes unverifiable claims. Are you able to verify the information on that page independently, User:Podiaebba? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As should have been clear by now from my edit summaries and the failure to include OpEdNews in the reference, the source is not OpEdNews (which is merely an incidental platform). The source is Jim/James Lesar, an attorney who co-founded the Assassination Archives and Research Center with Bud Fensterwald. Further, the source isn't just an unsupported assertion - it includes a scan of a letter from Veciana to Marie Fonzi, which you can see if you go there. I see no reason to doubt the authenticity of this. Podiaebba (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you verify the author is actually Lesar? Can you verify the scan is accurate? I can't at the time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to doubt the authorship; but feel free to contact Lesar via the AARC [1] or otherwise to ask him to confirm it. verify the scan is accurate? - don't beat about the bush. You're asserting the possibility that the document is faked, not that there's something wrong with the scan of it. As I said before, given Lesar putting his name to it, this is not a reasonable consideration. Podiaebba (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not a reliable source, either, nor is a first-person account on a website that is fully and wholly self-published. Is this information anywhere else that we can source it instead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You may not be a reliable source, but if you communicate your concerns to Lesar/AARC, I'm sure they would be willing to make something confirmatory public on the AARC website at least (probably just re-publishing the whole article in their news section), which would allow your anti-OpEdNews campaign to move forward (Thargor Orlando). As to other sources: well looking around, Veciana appears to have told Robert Morrow the same thing [2], and other researchers have picked it up (eg [3]). Frankly, it seems a bit pointless to make a fuss about Lesar's article with the letter scan being self-published given Veciana's recent press interviews and that his letter will undoubtedly be mentioned in future books. But if you're willing to make a quick phone call (I'm not in the US, and there's no email contact I can see), you can move along this matter of some minor historical significance by poking Lesar to put it on the AARC site. Podiaebba (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So where are the reliable sources on this? That's all I'm looking for here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A signed letter from a witness is a reliable, if primary, source as to what the witness claims. The authenticity of the letter is confirmed by a reputable researcher and lawyer (a profession in which faking documents is frowned upon more than most). You claim doubts about whether the researcher really published that article - well you can almost certainly fix that with a phone call, getting the article republished on the website of an institution he co-founded. Now, are you willing to make a phone call or not? It would probably take you less time than it took me to write this reply. Podiaebba (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, if it's verifiable. Right now, the authenticity is in question because we can't verify who wrote the piece, can't verify from the site that it's correct, and so on. A phone call won't do the trick. It needs to be published in a reliable publication. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A phone call won't do the trick. It needs to be published in a reliable publication. - Once again (how is this not clear yet?) I'm not asking you to make a phone call and report the results. I'm asking you to ask Lesar/AARC to republish Lesar's article, as I have no doubt they will fairly quickly if someone bothers to pick up the phone and explain why. I'd do it myself, but I'm not in the US. Once they've done so, AARC website will be a good enough source, yes? Podiaebba (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have brought this up at the reliable sources noticeboard, but, assuming the claim is allowable, would you be comfortable rewording it using this source instead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We already know Fonzi thought Bishop was Phillips. This can be expanded on (including why), but it's totally distinct from Veciana finally confirming it. Podiaebba (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

adding what is being discussed [4]:

[Veciana] told the widow of HSCA researcher Gaeton Fonzi that Fonzi's belief that "Maurice Bishop" was David Atlee Phillips was correct. ref:Jim Lesar, 1 December 2013, CIA Official Tied to JFK Assassination

Podiaebba (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)