Talk:Ike Altgens/Archive 1#John Depew

The article is a bit on the smaller side, needs a bigger lead, and footnotes --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

:Fixed. RadioKirk talk to me 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Already a Good Article, I'm curious to learn whether this could ever qualify as a Featured Article. My concerns are the dearth of information on this man's life prior to and following the event that made him famous. It appears at this point I have found all that can be found/is relevant/is verifiable. Comments invited. RadioKirk talk to me 05:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

:One book got me the rest. Thank you, User:Maclean25, :) RadioKirk talk to me 05:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the addition of the high-res version of the first Dealey Plaza photo is worthwhile. The impact of this photo (and many other news photos of the day) was made as a full-page print in Life or similar magazines. For our readers to get a feel for the medium in its heyday we should always include quality upsampled versions when possible (if having two versions in one article really does break Fair Use then we should have only the high res version thumbnailed). This is one of the small set of features that can set us apart from Britannica and others and we should exploit it to the hilt. Plus, in this particular photograph it is impossible to even see what is happening at the resolutions currently provided. JDG 14:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

:I disagree, and strongly; click on the first thumb and the full-res image is relatively clear in its presentation of the events (edit: and especially so now that I've put up a better scan).

:Please bear in mind, I'm of the very strong opinion that, while the crop is perfect for John F. Kennedy assassination and other articles specific to the assassination, this article is specific to Ike Altgens, and it should lead with his full, uncropped image. (I'll have to look it up, but I believe this also is supported by the Manual of Style.) The man-in-the doorway image already in the article better presents its subject as well.

:These points argue against replacement; the image certainly cannot be added as it provides nothing beyond those already there, which would violate Fair Use. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

::Well, we just disagree, but I won't press it. You say "the image certainly cannot be added as it provides nothing beyond those already there"-- but it does provide something: it provides a close, high res look into the passenger compartment of that limousine about 1 second after the shot struck. I can't come up with a more important service a version of a photograph can provide, honestly. All my version is is a detail of your version, and details (in the strict illustrative sense) are extensively used in encyclopedias, books and professional journals... BTW, when one clicks on "Download high-resolution version" in your image page, the old closer-cropped, poorer scan quality image is shown. JDG 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, by point: one, that's why it's an appropriate image for the assassination articles, but not for Altgens'—the article isn't about the assassination, and the exposition is incorrect here (and is the reason it would violate Fair Use [as an addition to those there now]); two, clear your cache to see the newer version.

:::Let me add, if I may: there's a specific reason this article doesn't go into the goings-on within the limousine, and that's because it's an argument for assassination pages that use this image as one of a large set of still and motion images for debate. The controversy that is specific to this image (and is the entire reason Altgens merits an article of his own, to be honest) is the man in the doorway. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The article previously said that, in the Altgens photo, one of the Secret Service agents in the follow-up car is looking at the grassy knoll. Presumably this referred to the second agent standing on the left running board of the follow-up car. However, the agent is looking to his right, not ahead. At that point where the vehicle was on Elm Street, he would be still looking at either Texas School Book Depository, or (more likely) at the crowds along the north side of Elm Street.

The [http://members.aol.com/droberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg Roberdau map] of Dealey Plaza can help show this. The Altgens photo was taken at Z-255 (see annotation on the right side of Elm Street). At that point the presidential limousine was still in front of the TSBD; the Secret Service follow-up car was behind that (for the presidential limousine drawn to scale, see it at the top of the map, on Houston Street). Whether the agent is looking 90 degrees to his right or even just 45 degrees to his right, he would still be looking in the direction of the TSBD. To be looking at the grassy knoll area from that point, he would have to be looking almost straight forward. — Walloon 09:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:You're correct, I neglected to take the curve of Elm into account when I wrote that. Otherwise, I've performed a minor rewrite that I hope you'll like. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

{{hidden|contentstyle=border:1px solid #C0C0C0; |headerstyle=color:black; background: #C0C0C0; |header= Disadvantages of date-autoformatting|content=

• (1) In-house only

:*(a) It works only for the WP "elite".

:*(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.

:*(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

:*(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

:*(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.

:*(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.

:*(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

:*(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.

:*(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.

:*(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

:*(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

:*(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").

:*(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.}}

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is missing VERY important information relating to the frames he shot that afternoon.

This article needs the following explained (as fully as possible):

What film stock was used?

Where is the original (negative, I assume) material now?

If original material is not available, then what copies were made, and how (how many generations 'away' have been taken from the source, original photon stimulated and processed film(s), if known)?

Where is (are) the camera(s) and lens(es) now? This is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT - AS THESE CAN BE TESTED TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT - and if tested positive, then further tests can be made to establish transmission qualities (properties) of the equipment used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.45.144 (talk • contribs)

:With all respect to the editor at 81.97.45.144, see "Notes for editors" above. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

:Update: eh, what the hell, I found some details, so they're in a footnote. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed some editorial and added citations and germaneness, with perhaps more to follow (when I find page numbers). Comments welcome. AnotherTinySliver (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

More cleanup here and there as I get to it. xD —ATinySliver|^ATalkPage 03:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

As I peruse the featured article review from 2010, the editor formerly (and perhaps again?) known as YellowMonkey includes the article's final citation as a criterion for delisting. I'd argue for its retention. Yes, near as I can tell, Brad Parker is not particularly prolific or established as assassination researchers go; his comment, however, strikes me as non-controversial. Further, it serves as a fitting epitaph for Ike Altgens—that is, Altgens the human being, not Altgens the collection of photographs. Opinions? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks for the pointer to this section. My opinion is UNDUE. Get something from a published source. I'm sure there are some "humanizing" quotes. Content should be based on reliable sources and thus considered of note by the editors of such sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

::I hate losing that quote; there's a humanity to Altgens that's lost without it. (No, we'd never met, and I have no personal interest other than a proper epitaph of sorts to a man history might otherwise forget.) Objectively I have to agree that, outside a quote here and there, Parker doesn't make the case for a friendship. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:::I hear ya. The encyclopedia is not diminished by some humanity. But if you are aiming for GA or FA all the content must have a good source (not fluff from a non notable person whom no one quoted in print). Surely there is something similar in a source somewhere? - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

{{outdent2}} That'd be nice ... I've searched on and off since this was first brought up, and not even Trask or the AP went beyond the bare. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 12:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed this reference as it is no longer verifiable. Altgens was likely "played" (as an extra, really) by John Henry Depew per his [http://boards.ancestry.com/topics.obits/85218/mb.ashx 2007 obituary], which doesn't specify the role. The John Depew listed at [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1956855/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm IMDb] is not the same. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's ready (*whew*); now to find out if others agree, with thanks. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In citing this article, I've come to realize that it relies—heavily—on two books by Richard B. Trask: Pictures of the Pain (1994) and its 1998 condensation, That Day In Dallas, which went into further biographical detail. It's unfortunate that only Trask really bothered to let us know Ike the man as opposed to Altgens the photographer; at the same time, had Trask not done it, I'm not sure anyone else would have, and Altgens' article wouldn't be nearly as personal, or human. I've intentionally avoided reading Trask's conclusions or even whether he has any; as an archivist, however, I owe him my thanks—no way we could have done this without him. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The passage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ike_Altgens&diff=prev&oldid=598349925 I deleted] says:

Altgens also told attorney and author Mark Lane that he saw several individuals, including a uniformed police officer, move toward the grassy knoll shortly before the motorcade arrived. Lane's best selling book Rush to Judgment would use interviews with Altgens and others in arguing for the presence of a shooter along the knoll.

... while Rush to Judgment, page 354 (none of the other pages cited mentions the subject), says:

Altgens was not called before the Commission, but eight months after the assassination he was questioned by counsel and he made a number of interesting observations. Among other things, he said that after the shots were fired [emphasis mine] he saw "uniformed policemen with drawn guns that went racing up this little incline". He followed them up the knoll toward the wooden fence since "if they had the assassin cornered I wanted a picture". Concluding his testimony, Altgens commented:

"Well, I wish I had been able to give this information to you the next day when it was fresh on my mind because 6 months or so later, sometimes the facts might be just a little bit off and I hate to see it that way."

The deleted data is inaccurate both because "before" somehow supplanted "after" and because there's no indication Altgens "told" Lane anything at all. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, I mean no disrespect to Lane or his seminal book. The idea is that we need to be precise with respect to what we relate from our sources. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

My inestimable thanks to Altgens' family. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

:Nice work getting the photo and OTRS etc. It improves the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

::TYVM :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 11:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

[http://www.deseretnews.com/article/540034492/Those-who-rode-by-Kennedy-remember.html?pg=all Here]. Direct link to original Dallas Morning News Web post formats incorrectly. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Granted this is my own observation but, assuming the frames are correctly numbered (and they almost certainly are by now), Altgens6 corresponds to Z254, not Z255. This is based on the positions of JFK's arm, Jackie's hand, Connally's head and the American flag in a visual comparison of Z253-256. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Changing my mind; I just did a side-by-side, blown up, and the sunlight off the American flag convinces me it's z255. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Timing based on the sunlight reflecting off Jackie's pillbox hat using [http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff394/dhjosephs/altgens7.jpg this reproduction] as a reference. To my eyes, there's too much sun in Z394 and too little in Z396. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

{{Talk:Ike Altgens/GA1}}

I'm going to leave this here just for shits and giggles: this [http://www.apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe-forming.html blog] at AP vs. Chicago discusses (as the name would suggest) the differences between AP style vs. the Chicago Manual of Style with respect to possessives and proper nouns. AP style would be "Altgens' photograph" and, since Ike was an AP man, I'm sticking with that. 20px —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference "WCH Vol. V, p. 180." refers to what? A full reference at some point should be provided. The sfn template would allow a link within each footnote to point to the full reference referred to. I will provide an example with the Trask references. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:MrBill3: There are 26 volumes of the Warren Commission Hearings. Although it isn't formatted in the way I would do it (because it is not technically called "Warren Commission Hearings"), that particular citation refers to [http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40&relPageId=190 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume V, page 180]. You can see how massive the Warren Commission collection is by starting [http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/docset/getList.do?docSetId=1000 here]. A few years ago, I put sfn templates together for the 8 chapters and 18 appendices of the Warren Commission Report because I found that they were so commonly used (and abused): Talk:Warren Commission/citation templates. While not an egregious error in this context, I regularly stumble across cherry-picked primary source material from the Warren Commission or HSCA that has been inserted by some editor pushing conspiracy theories. - Location (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

::{{u|MrBill3}}: That format was for any reference that had previously been listed in full; an "ibid" of sorts.

::{{u|Location}}: There's an exceedingly high likelihood that, if you guessed my opinion wrt conspiracy theories, you'd be wrong. 20px. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:::OK I reworded the references to refer/link to a reference in the bibliography section and included a link in that reference to the site pointed to above which seems a faithful and reliable reproduction of the WCH. Links to a conspiracy site's copies are not preferable. I added a formatted url link to several of the references to WCH. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Several statements are made in the article associating the timing of Altgens' photo and frames of the Zapruder film. These associations must be supported by reliable sources not OR. Likewise "within five seconds", according to what source? - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:You're correct, come to think of it, and I'm trying to get on it but Wiki's servers are being a PiTA right now ... xP xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The comment on Altgens' death by Brad Parker seems undue. Who is Parker and why is he notable? Searching for him or his book First on the Scene doesn't indicate notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

:See here. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 10:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion here. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

:As a self-published source, it is not acceptable. - Location (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

::Written out. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The content, "Fifty years after the assassination, the point was still being argued by historians and critics of the official investigations." needs stronger support. I am not seeing historians and the "critics" in the sources are known conspiracy theorists. Individuals and groups known as and described as conspiracy theorists should be described as such, not as "historians and critics of the official investigations". - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

:Fixed. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The content, "snapshot that led people in the United States and abroad to question whether accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway" could be changed to "photo that led some people to question...". "people in the United States and abroad" gives an impression of being widespread etc. I know the content closely reflects the source but when stating a fact in WP's voice it is important to consider the implication/impression. I have no problem with "controversial" as a great many people do disagree. Also "snapshot" is not what the work of professional photographers is described as. I appreciate all the work that has gone into the article and my input is intended to help it obtain GA approval (which I think it absolutely deserves at this point, but defer to the judgement of an editor with more knowledge on the JFK assassination and the GA process/standards). - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

:Fixed—using exact quote from source since "some people" would almost certainly have set off the weasel alarm. 20px —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

{{cite book |last=Sneed |first=Larry A. |year=1998 |chapter=James W. Altgens: Eyewitness |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=7uT-47ysB5MC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false |title=No More Silence: An Oral History of the Assassination of President Kennedy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7uT-47ysB5MC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false |location=Denton, Texas |publisher=University of North Texas Press |pages=41-59 |isbn=9781574411485}}

The above reference contains an interview of Altgens that provides good primary source material. I do not believe it is currently used in the article. -Location (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

:{{ping|Location}} Ooh, cool, I'll check that out, thank you! Meantime (and off-topic, sorry), there's another GAN that might be up your alley ... {{p|grin|size=20px}} —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

{{Substituted comment|length=733|lastedit=20150405010103|comment=

• {{diff2|47466466|Promotion to good article, 7 April 2006}}
• First peer review, opened 8 April 2006
• First featured article candidacy, opened 3 May 2006, closed 13 May 2006
• Featured article review, opened 7 July 2010, closed 3 August 2010
• Second peer review, opened 1 February 2014
• Second featured article candidacy, opened 11 February 2014, closed 28 March 2014
• Good article nomination, opened 10 December 2014, closed 2 January 2015}}

Substituted at 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)