This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Please Change Greer was born on a farm in Stewardstown, County Tyrone, Ireland to Greer was born on a farm in Stewartstown, County Tyrone, Ireland

The Spelling of Stewardstown is incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcaliskey (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An IP sock of the long-banned editor here [1] has returned to the page to push the fringe theory. I've reverted his additions, and filed at RFPP for further protection. Just letting everyone know. Dayewalker (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/William Greer. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

William Greer is mentioned as possible Kennedy assassin on the "Kennedy Assassination Theories" discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kennedy_assassination_theories 70.174.38.160 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greer is an important figure who deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia. I fail to see, however, why the Freemasons deserve to have an opinon on him, or William Cooper, a well-known conspiracist with zero credibility in the eyes of any reasonable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnej (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 November 2006

Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse only for those who "deserve to have an opinion", as you say. Everyone deserves to have an opinion. Greer is either partially or completely to blame for the death of The President of The United States. His role in this event warrants his own page. Furthermore, his actions in the motorcade are recorded on the Zapruder film for all to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehpitche (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 July 2007

Wikipedia aims to be an authoritative source. Conspiracy-mongerng should have no place there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barnej (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 August 2007

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Hqb 08:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a group of watchdogs reverting this post instantly whenever any responsibility is placed on Greer. In light of the enhanced MPI film (produced from the original Zapruder film) I'm requesting that you leave the current post intact and allow contributors to add the specific citations.

These revert warriors' have clear double standards, including a lack of citations for the first two paragraphs of the History section, as well as this paragraph: "Some commentators have criticized Greer's actions during the assassination, noting that he did not accelerate the vehicle to get the president out of danger as soon as he could have. In the confusion after the first shot was fired, the limousine's brake lights can be seen coming on briefly, slowing the car to almost a walking pace. The vehicle accelerated several seconds later, but by then the fatal shot had been fired. (Since that time, Secret Service agents have been trained to accelerate rapidly out of the area if they even think they hear gunfire.)" [citation needed]

Fact: William Greer was not just a driver, he was a trained SS agent authorized to carry a weapon in the presence of the president of the United States.

Fact: William Greer was with Kennedy the entire time from Love Field to Bethesda (alive and dead) and controlled his clothing (murder evidence). The so called "Warren Report" is the documentation supporting this last point. I have a copy on my shelf and plan to post many citations referencing it soon.

Fact: The stabilized Zapruder film as copied from the National Archives shows new detail of Greer's already contradicting actions (especially when compared to his testimony).

Fact: There is no credential for assassination researchers to determine what is credible (such as a PHD etc.) nor for theories that should or should not be considered. (And the age or widespread acceptance does NOT make a theory more credible. A lie can be old and widely believed, but it can still be a lie.) And please outline where a self-published is outlined as an invalid reference in Wikipedia's standards. All publishers turned down the work of Howard Weisburg even though he was the first and the best of the assassination researchers!

STOP REVERTING THIS ARTICLE TO EXCLUDE THE FACTS OUTLINED ABOVE. THEY ARE A CLEAR PART OF THE HISTORICAL RECORD AND THE MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DESERVES SUCH SCRUTINY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.244.196 (talk) 03:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FRINGE before you add this material again. Gamaliel (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this back to an earlier version, with a couple of amendments to text unsupported by the source. This article has been taken over by a fringe POV pusher intent on publicising his tin foil hat theories that are in his vanity published book, and was a gross violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. There are many theories detailed in Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and Greer is not mentioned there a single time. Therefore to have most of article that tries to make him look guilty is totally unacceptable. At best, all that should be in this article is something like "Although no court or official report has ever alleged wrongdoing on his part, [insert name(s) of credible non-tin foil hat non-vanity published author(s)] continue to explore Greer's possible complicity in the assassination", and that is assuming there is consensus on that article for a theory regarding Greer to be added. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed on Youtube that there is a nutty theory holding that Greer actually turned around and...delivered the fatal head shot to Kennedy. :) 192.121.232.253 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a solid week referencing the additions and removed speculation about greer firing a pistol, although to me, that can be the only explantation for his behavior in Z312. Please leave the well supported commentary in place. Greer's own admissions and archival footage backs up the section on the aftermath of the assassination, which is an important part of this unsolved murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.220.204 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not act in isolation from each other, they act in conjunction with each other. That something can be sourced does not mean it should be included, especially as in this case the addition fails WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. It is unacceptable to have the bulk of this article presenting a tiny fringe minority view, and worse still, presenting it as the majority view. There is no evidence of this even being a significant minority view, it is a tiny fringe minority view. If, and only if, credible sources can be found alleging Greer's involvement, then an appropriately weighted addition can be added. By appropriately weighted, I mean the one sentence addition I have already suggested. For 18 months you have been a single purpose fringe POV pusher edit warring against multiple editors in good standing, if you continue I will move to have you blocked or banned from this page. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "view" represented here other than the historcal records of Greer's role on November 22-23, 1963. The FBI consdered him a suspect at the time as they recorded his height and weight. It would be "FRINGE" to say "William Greer was the assassin of John F. Kennedy", which my edits do not. However, the foremost expert on the topic, Vince Palamara, is the source for much of ths commentary and considered Greer "The most important agent." It is a FACT that Greer's role was more than that of a driver, which the historical record demonstrates and these edits reinforce. To simply record him as a mere "driver" is worse than innacurate, it is false. Therefore, I sumbit that the entire article remain intact vs. a complete revert so that the text may be TWEAKED to comply with Wikipeda guidelines. For a time in human history, the idea that the world was round was actually a "fringe" point of view, only to be proven as fact over time.

To prove that these are not fringe views, you must provide sources which are acceptable according to WP:RS. Sources like Lifton are unacceptable according to policy. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources than just Lifton, including the "Warren Report" itself. Lifton is a researcher who has published a book. Don't do a complete revert simply because of Lifton as a source, please. If referencing Lifton is unacceptable WP policy, you have a great deal of work to do removing millions of references to published authors! Why are Manchester and Powers acceptable to you? Answer this question before you revert. Thank you.

Manchester is a respected, award winning historian. Lifton is some crank with a theory about body switching. WP:RS requires we treat them differently. Please familiarize yourself with policy before you revert war. Also note the policy WP:3RR. Gamaliel (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifton is a published author and respected researcher, despite his own controversial theories. If a researcher finds documents that show the moon is round but insists the earth is flat, one can still extract a component of the researchers work without endorsing their entire world view, can they not? How about Vince Palamara? And why don't you just edit out Lifton's references instead of reverting? YOU are causing the revert war by not editing. Obscuring much of my edits seems to be your objectve, I guess. There are many "respected" authors who have misrepresented the truth. Study and learn from your history in grade school. A round earth was a "fringe" view held by less respected researchers for a time, while the "respected" authors and other "professionals" held that the earth was flat. See Flat Earth. I have added references to the John F. Kennedy Assassination section on Secret Service Criticism that you just reverted. You can threaten me with WP topics all you want. The objective here is to edit and improve. Please contribute.

If you add this information back once more, I will move to have you banned from this page, which may well be enforced by block. The information is a fringe theory being given undue weight. Your "sources" are just a mish-mash of synthesis designed to make Greer look as guilty as possible based on your own observations on the sources. Take your use of the Warren Commission, it is being used to source the sentence "Greer did not discuss slowing the car in his statement to the FBI on the night of the assassination, nor did he mention this aspect to the Warren Commission during the official investigation", amongst other dubious sentences. That is your observation on his testimony, and is solely designed to make Greer look guilty and is a policy violation. Similarly the sentence of "The FBI interviewed Greer after the assassination and, although agents Kellerman and Behn were also interviewed, Greer's interview is unique in that his physical description is also recorded in the 11/27/63 FBI report" is exactly the same, and there are countless similar problems. This article is not going to be turned into an attack article on Greer, and if one more attempt is made to do so I will move for a ban. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't pass off the burden of the flaws in your contributions to others. If you want your contributions to stay, they must conform to WP policy. That means no dubious sources like Lifton as per WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, no analysis of primary evidence which is prohibited original research, etc. Your references to former mistaken beliefs like the flat earth are irrelevant. We aren't here to blaze new trails or overturn established thought. We reflect mainstream, established sources, and if we are wrong, we change it after those sources have been corrected. If that is unacceptable to you, then this is not the website for you, because that is a core Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greer's involvement in the aftermath of the assassination is a valid component of the historical record. STOP REVERTING MY WORK TO THE BS "GREER WAS JUST AN OLD DRIVER" BALONEY AND MAKE SPECIFIC EDITS TO WHAT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH!

Discussion of whatever Greer's involvement was isn't the issue. The issue is inappropriate fringe sources like Lifton and original research analysis of primary sources as in the section "A new look at the Zapruder film". Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe discussing Greer's involvement in this article is very much the issue. As this is a short article, the whole problem is undue weight, especialy as his involvement is a significant way from the majority view. Per WP:FRINGE fringe views should be dealt with in the article about the view, which in this case already exists as there's a whole article about the conspiracy theories. A one or two sentence summary in this article would be acceptable if a reliably sourced theory can be added no that article, but covering the theory in depth in this article causes undue weight problems. Which is essentially what I said back in March! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. A summary would have been as far as it should go. I was trying to get through to the anon that this wasn't an ideological problem but one of sources and I figured the weight issue could be dealt with once we got through to the anon, which unfortunately turned out to be fruitless. Gamaliel (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)```````````````````````````````````````````[reply]

Greer's own testimony in the Warren Report contradicts his actions in the Zapruder film. In short, he lied to cover up the fact that he (along with Kellerman) saw that JFK was mortally wounded and DID NOT RESPOND ACCORDING TO SS POLICY! The Warren Report, the HSCA Report, the Zapruder film, and ABC news footage are sufficient sources. You are covering up the truth! -Anon

If these are sufficient sources, why keep inserting the fringe ones like Lifton? Gamaliel (talk) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are sufficient sources. Leave these comments and references. Lifton is the most respected and published among critics. If you have a problem with him, then remove (EDIT) the text attributed to him, but don't "throw the baby out with the bath water" by childish revision. Much of my edits revolve around FBI reports, Warren Commission Testimony, the Zapruder Film, etc. Greer and the US Secret Service set the stage for the assassination of JFK. You're doing a disservice to the United States of America and the world by framing him as a "driver" who was slow to react. The stabilized Zapruder Film clearly shows that he turned a second time to shoot JFK, his Warren Commission testimony is false, and the FBI report records his physical description, as standard with suspects. Clearly, Greer's role was beyond a driver. ("Constant vigilance" is attributed to him.) See Vince Palamara's work. Don't expect any "mainstream" source to claim what the Zapruder film clearly shows-Greer murdered JFK because the other shots were not fatal and time was running out. Extract what ut you don't see as substantiated, but don't revert to the "driver" BS.

Lifton is just the beginning of the problems with the material. We can work with this section if you are serious about getting this alternative viewpoint in the article, but repeatedly inserting Lifton in the article shows that you are not serious about adhering to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop reverting and give me the opportunity to revise. OR, spend time researching and revising yourself, as you did with the LHO page. I'm not hanging my hat on Lifton, although he IS respected and has done much research. You can't expect a detractor from the "official" story to have the same credentials. (The US Government is credible, along with anyone else selling the lie. but critics are not simply because they are critics of the "official"? A lack of "officialdom" should not diminish their contribution to the research process. By the way, why in the Hell are you revising this so quickly and so frequently? Do you have this flagged with an alert. Five or ten minutes response time around the clock is pretty extreme. It looks like your desperately trying to hide the truth. I wrote over 2/3 of this article (most with my real user name) so don't demonize me because of Lifton. I am deadly serious about the truth.

You can revise using a word or google document, or you can create a WP:SANDBOX as a subpage of your userpage, something like this. We can't material that violates policy sit in the article until you get around to revising it into a satisfactory form. You've been inserting this material for quite some time without making the slightest revision, so I think at this point it's incumbent upon you to show that you are willing to revise at all, not for us to violate policy in hopes you will eventually decide to adhere to it.

Users with accounts have a feature called a "watchlist" and you can flag any article you wish in such a manner if you get an account.

Accusing me of "desperately trying to hide the truth" is not appropriate behavior under Wikipedia policy. Policy requires that you treat other editors in a civil manner. Gamaliel (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What SPECIFCALLY violates WP policy? Please quote the text and I will edit accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.12.102 (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start by removing fringe sources like Lifton and read the rest of this talk page. There are plenty of editors here trying to explain what's wrong with the section. If you have any questions about the concerns we've raised, please let me know here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lifton is clear but "read the rest of this talk page" is not specific enough. Since you are so hell-bent on reverting ASAP, why don't you give more specifics please?

For starters, please have a look at our prohibition against original research, particularly the section entitled "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to remove a discussion. Vexorg (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is indented as if it is a response to mine, but I am not the one who removed the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :) Vexorg (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back! I'm very happy to report that this idea is no longer "fringe". In his new five volume book, Inside the Assassination Records and Review Board, highly credible researcher Doug Horne points to William Robert Greer as a possible shooter, which is corroborated by both the Zapruder film and witness testimony, including that of Secret Service Agent Clint Hill. Now, I respectfully ask that you not revert the edits. This view is no longer "fringe". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.137.27 (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Still amazed at how rapidly this page is reverted. Someone must be standing by 24/7 with an alert coming to their mobile device, huh? Pretty fishy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.137.27 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you revert your 4RR on the article until you get consensus to add it to the BLP article. As this article has been locked down for six months because of your previous edits, it seems best to make sure there's consensus to add the material. Dayewalker (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis are you claiming that this person is mainstream? --B (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the above discussions, I have blocked this IP as a clear reincarnation. His topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202#Proposed_topic_ban seems to be in order and this is obviously the same person. (Note the use of the word "gatekeeper" to refer to those who remove his fringe claims.) --B (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't even bother to entertain this banned editor, but here goes anyway. The book does not mention the Zapruder Film, and only details the theory as "tentative possibility exists", and it is only included with the caveat "it would be cowardly of me not to mention it here". Horne does not seem to promote, advocate or endorse the theory, only acknowledging its existence. Read WP:FRINGE, being mentioned in a reliable source does not make it any less fringe.

On a side note thanks to the admins for prompt action regarding this, hopefully he'll get the message some time soon..... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the banned editor quotes an entirely different volume of the book from the one cited and still claims to right? Absolutely hilarious, as only on Wikipedia could a source which says the film does "not depict Greer holding a handgun and pointing it at President Kennedy" (yes, read that quote and weep people since the entire three year edit war has been based on the fact that certain people believe the film shows Greer firing the fatal shot!!!) possibly be used to corroborate "illustrates more detail of Greer's actions during the fatal shooting sequence, causing some commentators to speculate that perhaps Greer stopped the limo to fire the fatal head shot". Cherry picking quotes doesn't even help, as anyone performing a cursory read of the sections of the book in question will see he's into conspiracy theory territory, thus remaining deeply in WP:FRINGE territory. I really don't even know why I'm wasting my time typing this since the IP editor never listens to anything anyone says. To sum up, it's fringe, it's always been fringe, it will take years before there's even a possibility of it not becoming fringe, you're banned from editing any articles relating to the assassination of JFK, we're not interested in anything you have to say, please go away, thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what is going on with this "de facto banned editor," I find it strange that a talk page would get reverted like this. It seems not to be in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia. Likewise I find the pointing to WP:FRINGE being violated strange, too. I would have to say that most if not all conspiracy theories would be fringe theories. But that policy clearly does not state that fringe theories cannot be mentioned, just that they cannot be given undue weight. It also seems to me that the fact many conspiracy theorists do believe that Greer was the assassin is worth mentioning somewhere. The Kellerman article does mention that Kellerman thought there was a conspiracy. This article mentions that Greer slowed down and looked back, which the Zapruder film appears to show. I hate to stir the pot, but the theory that Greer killed Kennedy is also discussed in Behold a Pale Horse. As for credibility, I wonder how we could deal with conspiracy theorists' credibility. I would have to say that as far as this goes, conspiracy theorists would be credible as sources showing that there was a conspiracy theory. Whether they are credible when it comes to the actual assassination is another story, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact there are conspiracy theorists who believe that Greer shot Kennedy, who also produce frames of the Zapruder film they interpret as showing Greer with his weapon drawn when he turned around to face Kennedy. I don't think we can reasonably exclude the fact that such a theory exists, regardless of what we might think about it. I think Oswald shot Kennedy and acted alone, but the frames in question do look interesting. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:William Greer#Disgusting article, and various other sections where this has been discussed. As for the banned editor, he's edit warred for three years to include this fringe viewpoint in this article and refused to listen to anything anyone else has to say. We really aren't interested in discussing it with *him* any further, he's had many chances to work within policy, he failed to take those chances, and now he's banned from all articles relating to the assassination of JKF. There's really no reason why the time of editors should be wasted dealing with this crankery any more. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@B:, @SarekOfVulcan:, @EdJohnston:. You have all previously taken administrative action regarding this editor, so perhaps you could keep an eye on this rather obvious reincarnation. The evidence, other than them pushing the same tired unsourced conspiracy theories about Greer;

From the latest IP "Constant Reversion of Cited, Critical Content". The Only Other People That Type Headings Like This On This Page are the previous incarnation, see for example #Why Keep Reverting When So Much Documented Fact?, #Help Edit This Article to Reflect the Historical Record, #AARB Researcher Doug Horne Points To Greer and #Why All The Reverting of a Discussion.

From the latest IP "Time and time again - almost 24/7/365 - cited analysis and criticism of Secret Service Agent William Robert Greer is falsely defined as "vandalism" and reverted to apologist, government-explanation-only content, which lacks citations". As the recent history of the article shows, the only recent mention of vandalism in the edit history is this revert of an edit repeatedly describing Greer as inept and adding other unsourced criticism. Other reverts such as this have repeatedly mentioned WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE & WP:V, never vandalism. The previous incarnation's attempts to add conspiracy theory garbage to this article and Greer related material to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories were warned for vandalism, as the editor complains about here. Regarding the "Time and time again - almost 24/7/365" remark, this is similar to claims made by the previous incarnation such as "There is a group of watchdogs reverting this post instantly whenever any responsibility is placed on Greer" and "By the way, why in the Hell are you revising this so quickly and so frequently?".

From the latest IP additions to the article such as "The FBI recorded Greer’s physical description during an interview with him after the assassination" (additional diffs). The previous incarnation repeatedly tried to add a similar sentence to the article in an attempt to insinuate Greer's supposed guilt, see for example "The FBI interviewed Greer after the assassination and, although agents Kellerman and Behn were also interviewed, Greer's interview is unique in that his physical description is also recorded in the 11/27/63 FBI report", this was repeatedly edit warred into the article by 173.79.229.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.246.220.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (every major edit to the article from either IP is a diff including that phrase).

Last, but by no means least. Even if this IP isn't the same editor that's topic banned, do we really need another single purpose account edit warring to include an unsourced conspiracy theory in total violation of WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:V? There is the last major edit by the current incarnation. The only source cited is this which is a copy of the FBI report (obviously a primary source), being used to source a sentence whose only purpose is to try and make Greer look suspicious. I am not interested in what the IP says the Zapruder film does or does not show, or what Greer said in his FBI interview, or what Secret Service procedures were. Creating a critique of Greer from those is explicitly forbidden per no original research. Neither am I interested in the contents of "Murder from Within: Lyndon Johnson's Plot Against President Kennedy" by Fred T. Newcomb (with editing by Perry Adams). This book was a manuscript that gathered dust for well over 30 years before being self-published on AuthorHouse by the author's son in 2011 shortly before the author's death. Who was Fred T. Newcomb? Nobody. Self-published conspiracy theory garbage has no place in this article, and in my opinion we shouldn't even waste time discussing it. Grewsome47 (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi extended indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t like the edits. Fair enough. Why was the editor’s Talk Page entry deleted? Secret Service Fan (talk) 23:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the IP edits because they aren't entitled to abuse this talkpage as a forum for general discussion and theorizing, and blocked is blocked - they may not edit. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've hard-blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that cited content pertaining to “Analysis and Criticism” of William Greer is relevant content. Other content that seemingly exonerates Greer stands for years, unsourced. “Vandalism” seems to be subjective, especially depending upon your view of the assassination. @SarekOfVulcan seems to imply his personal views are a primary reason for not exploring Greer’s role in the death of JFK. This does not seem to be in keeping with the policies of Wikipedia, or good journalism or authorship. Secret Service Fan (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the account, since it's obviously the same person, and because the blocked IP was using images uploaded by the account to Commons. Acroterion (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the comments were removed due to violations of the topic ban per WP:BANREVERT, since as pointed out further up "There is no reason why the time of productive editors should continue to be wasted here, by someone who has no intention of following Wikipedia policy or respecting the consensus of the talk page".

You are welcome to appeal the topic ban, see WP:UNBAN for details. However, I would recommend you don't since it will be a pointless exercise. Why? Well, TEN YEARS later, you still have a fixation on Greer and are editing in violation of your topic ban to edit war against consensus to add a conspiracy theory and/or criticism in violation of WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Any appeal under those circumstances will be doomed to failure, so I recommend you make more productive use of your time elsewhere. Grewsome47 (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for the statement “Secret Service procedures in place at the time did not allow Greer to take action without orders from senior agent Roy Kellerman, who sat to Greer's right.“ Secret Service Fan (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More from blocked kook. EEng 08:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the stabilized Zapruder film is broken. I don't want to break the page so could someone take a look? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.160.249 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change the location of birth from Ireland to Northern Ireland as they are seperate countries, it seems like a trivial edit but in the pursuit of accuracy the orginal is incorrect. Pheakay (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: As the subject was born in Ireland 10 years before the Irish War of Independence and therefore before the existence of Northern Ireland, as an entity separate from the Republic of Ireland, it would be inappropriate to list his birthplace as such. On Wikipedia when listing the birthplace of subjects it is generally SOP to list the political entity that the subject was born into whether or not that entity still exists. See Vladimir Putin where his birthplace is listed as "Leningrad, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union" despite the fact that Leningrad has since reverted to its pre-soviet name of "St. Petersburg", and that the Russian SFSR and the Soviet Union no longer exist. — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His birthplace can be kept as Ireland however in the histroy section Stewartstown, County Tyrone should be changed to Northern Ireland. If you look up the wiki on said place it also states Northern Ireland. His birth is fine as is but for accuracy the town should be updated to its current location. Pheakay (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]