Jump to content

Talk:Disappearance of Richard Colvin Cox: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|listas=Cox, Richard Colvin|blp=yes|1=

{{WikiProject New York (state)|Hudson=yes|Hudson-importance=Low}}
{{WPBiography
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|OH=yes|OH-importance=Low}}
|class=Stub
{{WikiProject Biography|auto=inherit}}
|auto=yes
|military-work-group=yes
|listas=Cox, Richard Colvin
|priority=
}}
}}
{{WPMILHIST|US-task-force=yes|class=Stub}}


==OK, "Colvin"? or "Calvin"?==
== OK, "Colvin"? or "Calvin"? ==
The title of this article has "Calvin," but the name in the lead is "Colvin." Which is it? Feel free to revert me if I am wrong, but I am going to change the name in the lead paragraph to match the name in the article title. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The title of this article has "Calvin," but the name in the lead is "Colvin." Which is it? Feel free to revert me if I am wrong, but I am going to change the name in the lead paragraph to match the name in the article title. [[User:ProfessorPaul|ProfessorPaul]] 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
: After looking at images of the book available through Amazon's website, I can see it is clearly "Colvin" not "Calvin" according to Maihafer. That means we need to go through the bother of getting the page renamed... --[[User:TravisM|TravisM]] 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
: After looking at images of the book available through Amazon's website, I can see it is clearly "Colvin" not "Calvin" according to Maihafer. That means we need to go through the bother of getting the page renamed... --[[User:TravisM|TravisM]] 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Line 16: Line 12:
: Absolutely, and exactly why I came to the Discussion board - What solution does this book propose?? Anybody know? [[User:Engr105th|Engr105th]] ([[User talk:Engr105th|talk]]) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
: Absolutely, and exactly why I came to the Discussion board - What solution does this book propose?? Anybody know? [[User:Engr105th|Engr105th]] ([[User talk:Engr105th|talk]]) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


==It's "Colvin" And I Will Complete The Article After It Is Changed==
== It's "Colvin" And I Will Complete The Article After It Is Changed ==
Okay, I went to the library and actually GOT the book, "Oblivion" and so am now, having read it, in a position to complete the article, by putting forth the very reasonable theory advanced in Maihafer's book. However, I don't really want to touch the article until the title is corrected, because '''Cox's middle name was ''COLVIN'' and ''NOT "CALVIN"'''''. I would make the change myself but for the fact that I have no idea how to do so. [[User:Hi There|Hi There]] ([[User talk:Hi There|talk]]) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I went to the library and actually GOT the book, "Oblivion" and so am now, having read it, in a position to complete the article, by putting forth the very reasonable theory advanced in Maihafer's book. However, I don't really want to touch the article until the title is corrected, because '''Cox's middle name was ''COLVIN'' and ''NOT "CALVIN"'''''. I would make the change myself but for the fact that I have no idea how to do so. [[User:Hi There|Hi There]] ([[User talk:Hi There|talk]]) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:There are at least three issues with your suggestion. First of all, it's not within the scope of Wikipedia to solve a disappearance or present a solution to a mystery in an article. The article already relies solely upon a single source, the Maihafer book, which is an issue for it as it is right now. To "complete" the article based on what is essentially a fringe theory gives undue weight to Maihafer, his book, and one solution only. It's POV to assume that the article would be complete once Maihafer's theory is presented. Secondly, doing this would essentially endorse his book, and ultimately act as subtle advertising for it. Thirdly, the book itself is published by a vanity press publishing company, so that casts doubts as to it being a reliable source. One additional issue doesn't need to be stated here, but we know what it is. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What ?!? How do you know it was a vanity press company, and what's the mysterious issue? I'm restoring a previous edit of this Discussion page. I will leave the actual article alone. {{unsigned|76.93.87.176}}

:It's relatively easy to track a book and publisher. The issue, which isn't at all mysterious, is answered by the question "Why did you bother to come on and restore only a discussion which was posted by a proven sock puppet of [[User:Nyannrunning]] (which was [[User:Newcastleind]])?" Really, it's getting a bit old, popping up on the same old articles and restoring content, on either article pages or talk pages, that are there originally a sock. The banned sock master [[User:Nyannrunning]] came on and edited this article when the only changes to it for 17 months were four very minor housekeeping/adminstrative changes.[[User:Nyannrunning]]'s additions came from the (obscure) Maihafer book. The sock puppet [[User:Newcastleind]] made another edit to the article, and after the talk page had been idle for 8 months, [[User:Newcastleind]] enters a lengthy chat about this book. This was the confirmatory evidence that allowed the sock puppet case to be proven. So, WHY would you come back to the same article, again, and restore that discussion when no one else in the world has bothered? If you're going to be insistent about using sock puppet accounts, my advice would be to use a name that hasn't shown up anywhere and edit articles that you've never bothered with before. It's always that irresistible compulsion to come back to these articles that prove the sock cases. Once a person is banned for abusing multiple accounts, they aren't welcome to sneak back over and over and edit the samea articles. You know this, Dooyar, and you know that it will removed and blocked. Desist. And moving around LA county and using internet access from gig12-vnnyca2-cda6.socal.rr.com is the clincher. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 02:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How did I get accused of being a sock puppet? I have no idea who "76.93.87.176" is but it isn't me. I will continue the original discussion after this stupid little problem is taken care of. [[User:Hi There|Hi There]] ([[User talk:Hi There|talk]]) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


So, what will it take for this to be corrected? Signed, Jeff, a curious reader <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.185.18.207|198.185.18.207]] ([[User talk:198.185.18.207|talk]]) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
So, what will it take for this to be corrected? Signed, Jeff, a curious reader <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/198.185.18.207|198.185.18.207]] ([[User talk:198.185.18.207|talk]]) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Restoring article so it tells everyone ...==
== Restoring article so it tells everyone ... ==

... why it has just one source. Book was authored officially by a poor high school teacher (Marshall Jacobs) who took it as far as it can go ...
... why it has just one source. Book was authored officially by a poor high school teacher (Marshall Jacobs) who took it as far as it can go ...


Line 38: Line 26:
Lots of famous books and plays started as vanity, such as Arthur Miller's The Crucible.
Lots of famous books and plays started as vanity, such as Arthur Miller's The Crucible.


Hence somebody tagged article calling into question its lone source. As long as Maihafer remains dead, and as long as Richard Colvin Cox was born 82 years ago, then what other source can ever be? Article clarifies book "proposes a solution." You can read solution in book. Bottom line: Cox probably lived until early '90's and he didn't want anyone to go public with old photographs of him from mass circulations Life and Coronet, and "a mysterious friend called George" probably was David Westervelt. He died of leukemia in his 40's in '69. His widow didn't know him when Cox vanished and she doesn't know anything about it. Jacobs said Mrs. Westervelt thinks the personality of the man she knew matches the man who tortured those people in Germany. Abusive talking on the phone with West Point receptionist also sounds like her man. She doesn't really know, right? David Westervelt was married to another woman in 1950s, dead now. That's the end of it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.203.140.101|67.203.140.101]] ([[User talk:67.203.140.101|talk]]) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hence somebody tagged article calling into question its lone source. As long as Maihafer remains dead, and as long as Richard Colvin Cox was born 82 years ago, then what other source can ever be? Article clarifies book "proposes a solution." You can read solution in book. Bottom line: Cox probably lived until early '90s and he didn't want anyone to go public with old photographs of him from mass circulations Life and Coronet, and "a mysterious friend called George" probably was David Westervelt. He died of leukemia in his 40s in '69. His widow didn't know him when Cox vanished and she doesn't know anything about it. Jacobs said Mrs. Westervelt thinks the personality of the man she knew matches the man who tortured those people in Germany. Abusive talking on the phone with West Point receptionist also sounds like her man. She doesn't really know, right? David Westervelt was married to another woman in 1950s, dead now. That's the end of it.<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.203.140.101|67.203.140.101]] ([[User talk:67.203.140.101|talk]]) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:What does half of this have to do with the fact that this section is promotional in nature for the book and adds nothing of substantive value to the article except to tease the reader about the solution in the book? This section in no way expands the sourcing beyond one source because nothing in the article, including the mini-biography of the book editor is sourced at all. And please stop wikilinking the dates in the article. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 05:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a second source on the Cox mystery. If you read the book, you see that a second person investigated it so many years after Cox was declared legally dead in '57. The daily newspaper in his hometown ran a series of front-page articles in '82. The year '82 is old enough that the Mansfield paper isn't online, but anyone can get interlibrary loan of the microfilm. Or you can read a summary of it in the Jacobs book. But that's our singular, probably unreliable source, right? I told you about the legitimate publisher, Potomac Books, that took responsibility for the whole thing three years after Jacobs paid for vanity. Oh, well, whatever ... go to Mansfield, Ohio, go to dispute resolution, but for heaven's sake let's do something productive ... ''something''! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.203.140.101|67.203.140.101]] ([[User talk:67.203.140.101|talk]]) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== This article could have multiple legitimate sources ==
I get it. The less I type, the more I reveal. Such as the fact that Potomac Books (not Potomac Press) isn't a vanity publisher. Its web site's instruction for aspiring writers is to submit your manuscript but ...

[http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/info/ContactUS.aspx#PS ... don't call them; they'll call you.]

The company was called Brassey's when it published the sole Richard Cox book in 1996. The web site says front and center it was "formerly Brassey's." Here is a library catalog that tells you the Cox book was published by Brassey's. It's one of the search results you get for the author Harry Maihafer.

[http://catalog.lapl.org/carlweb/jsp/FullRecord?databaseID=965&record=6&controlNumber=1473259 Main source for this article was published by Brassey's in 1996, now known as Potomac Books.]

There are other sources on the Cox mystery besides the book. The [[Mansfield News Journal]] ran two series of articles: one in 1982 and the other in January of 2010. Most installments began on the paper's front page. Maybe someone can add references to them in this Wikipedia article along with a new [[Wikipedia Commons]] pdf or two with permission from the ''News Journal''.

Accusations of sockpuppetry can't change these two lies:

1 -- The only book ever published on the Cox mystery is a vanity-published book.

2 -- It's the only published source on Cox.

I'm sick of the lies.

I added something earlier today to the [[7-11]] discussion page.

::Lies or mistakes? --[[Special:Contributions/2.25.130.27|2.25.130.27]] ([[User talk:2.25.130.27|talk]]) 03:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

== Something Missing? ==
There seems to be something missing here, namely Jacobs & Maihafer's theory/account of Cox's life between his disappearance and his turning up the hospital in Bethesda, Maryland some 40 years later. Can anybody shed some light on this? [[User:Ttenchantr|Ttenchantr]] ([[User talk:Ttenchantr|talk]]) 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

== Jacobs / Maihafer nonsense ==
Cox was a legally-bound member of the US Army as a West Point cadet. His absence, if voluntary, constituted the crime of desertion. An offense both the US Army and the FBI took quite seriously. It is preposterous to believe that he would have been a patient in a US government hospital, able to dismiss attempts to identify his fugitive self with the excuse of not wanting to have his privacy invaded. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.110.29.215|70.110.29.215]] ([[User talk:70.110.29.215|talk]]) 14:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== BLP? ==
If he was declared legally dead in 1957, this is not a biography of a living person. --[[User:Richardson mcphillips|Richardson mcphillips]] ([[User talk:Richardson mcphillips|talk]]) 17:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


== An "Event" in his life ==
There is a second source on the Cox mystery. If you read the book, you see that a second person investigated it so many years after Cox was declared legally dead in '57. The daily newspaper in his hometown ran a series of front-page articlse in '82. The year '82 is old enough that the Mansfield paper isn't online, but anyone can get interlibrary loan of the microfilm. Or you can read a summary of it in the Jacobs book. But that's our singular, probably unreliable source, right? I told you about the legitimate publisher, Potomac Books, that took responsibility for the whole thing three years after Jacobs paid for vanity. Oh, well, whatever ... go to Mansfield, Ohio, go to dispute resolution, but for heaven's sake let's do something productive ... ''something''! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.203.140.101|67.203.140.101]] ([[User talk:67.203.140.101|talk]]) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
It is an event in his life, not a biography. [[User:Adamdaley|Adamdaley]] ([[User talk:Adamdaley|talk]]) 07:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
:This is not dispute resolution. Dooyar, Nyannrunning, whatever you're calling yourself these days, there is ''not'' a second source contained in the article. Saying someone wrote a book, without even citing that addition's statements, is ''not'' adding a second source, nor is it citing the article itself. What you're adding is simply a book promotion. It's not my job to go hunt an obscure book written about the subject in order to add it to this article. And please do not tell me to get it from interlibrary loan. This falls under [[WP:PROVEIT]], which says it is ''your'' responsibility to adequate source content you add. Do not readd this content. There is nothing to resolve here, you are adding a book promotion without proper referencing. Now go learn how to source and address the sock puppet tag I put on your page. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


== Conclusions of the Jacobs investigation ==
==What's with you?==
I am not a sockpuppet. Wildhartfire, livie, whatever you're calling yourself these days, or whatever your opinion of Los Angeles, California is ... Hey, nobody's promoting any book here. People have cited it as a legitimate source, which is what it is. If you don't want to read it ... that's cool. But there it is on amazon.com and many local government library systems. If you're calling it a fraud, you're making a very serious charge about a major book publisher, Potomac Books. They pay their authors. Or is there something mysterious about that, too? Please start a dispute resolution here and then I'm going to bed for the night.


Having just finished reading oblivion I have to say that I am a confused as to why it's answer is not on this wikimedia page? Is the book considered to be untrustworthy or something? [[Special:Contributions/125.209.158.144|125.209.158.144]] ([[User talk:125.209.158.144|talk]]) 08:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The old section "Dispute re-examined" said Harry Maihafer (not a "book editor" as you claim him to be) died in 2002; it said that for the purpose of showing the reader that the facts end there. He worked with Jacobs investigating the mystery so many years after the national media lost interest in it, then he died. If you're suggesting "Disappearance re-examined" promotes anything or anyone, then clearly you haven't read this legitimately published book and you're misrepresenting the work of ''several'' Wiki editors going back three years. Several of them approved of the "... re-examined" section the way it was. If you're not going to approach dispute resolution, or if they overlook this while you ignore them, then ... hey, what more can anyone do to please you? Buenas noches. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.203.140.101|67.203.140.101]] ([[User talk:67.203.140.101|talk]]) 05:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Fiancee==
:I am not going to start a dispute resolution. There is no dispute. You have added back content you first added here before. I'm not calling the book a fraud, I'm saying the addition that you keep restoring is inappropriately added content. It is not referenced in anyway, and adding a mention of a book does not make the article sourced by more than one source. I did not call anyone a book editor, please don't misrepresent what I said. You are adding unsourced background information on a book that has been written. You are not adding anything about the subject of this article. Go away, Dooyar. You were banned permanently for a reason and I'm not going to get into a drawn out dispute with a proven sock puppet. How do you happen to know what that is if you're an innocent bystander?? That book is not being used to source ''anything''. Keep it up and your IP will be blocked. There have not been "several Wiki editors" on this page. You made most of the substantial edits and no one edited after July except a date delinking bot. Now go to bed and stop trying to return to Wikipedia. You're not wanted here. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
One question that immediately comes up is whether his fiancee ever heard from him and whether something may have changed their relationship. Is this not discussed in the literature?[[User:Billposer|Bill]] ([[User talk:Billposer|talk]]) 03:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


:Betty never heard from him. The Oblivion book says that. During the massive search for him in New York, she was in Ohio thinking he was still committed to her. [[User:Brent Brant|Brent Brant]] ([[User talk:Brent Brant|talk]]) 00:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
How do I happen to know what a dispute about a sockpuppet is if I'm an innocent bystander? Because innocent bystanders have access to the Wiki article about sockpuppets. How is the addition I'm trying to restore inappropriate? You've never read (or seen?) the book, so how do you know what's in it? Scroll up higher in this discussion page and you'll find another Wiki editor who found the book, too. The book says Harry Maihafer was a known graduate of West Point in 1949. It says Marshall Jacobs needed help from him because the mystery happened at West Point and Jacobs had no first-hand information about the campus. What's wrong with saying the book contains a "proposed solution?" You're not suggesting that our article should summarize that solution, nor am I. And your reference to "Go away Dooyar" tells the dispute resolution people more about you than about anyone or anything. I won't track down the dispute mediators tonight because it's late at night now. If I return here during the day to find that you've deleted everything I've said in this discussion, then there's nothing I can do. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.203.140.101|67.203.140.101]] ([[User talk:67.203.140.101|talk]]) 06:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Not buying it, Dooyar. The addition is inappropriate because it's about a person who wrote a book, not about the article subject at all. We both know that [[User:Hi There]] is an already blocked sock account of yours. Keep talking, you're adding behavioral evidence to support the sock case with every word you type. There will be no dispute resolution request filed, only a [[WP:SSI|suspected sock investigation]], if necessary. I've already contacted an administrator who will block. Dooyar, go home. [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 06:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
My addition to the article is about Richard Colvin Cox, the subject of the article. It's not about Harry Maihafer. If you want me to keep talking, then why are you shutting me up? What does "go home" mean? Most Wikipedia editors use home computers.[[User:My account now|My account now]] ([[User talk:My account now|talk]]) 04:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:13, 5 January 2025

OK, "Colvin"? or "Calvin"?

[edit]

The title of this article has "Calvin," but the name in the lead is "Colvin." Which is it? Feel free to revert me if I am wrong, but I am going to change the name in the lead paragraph to match the name in the article title. ProfessorPaul 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at images of the book available through Amazon's website, I can see it is clearly "Colvin" not "Calvin" according to Maihafer. That means we need to go through the bother of getting the page renamed... --TravisM 08:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"which proposes a solution"...which is?? Is this some kind of teaser for this book, in an encyclopedia article? If the book is relevant, this should be clarified. 71.63.119.49 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and exactly why I came to the Discussion board - What solution does this book propose?? Anybody know? Engr105th (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Colvin" And I Will Complete The Article After It Is Changed

[edit]

Okay, I went to the library and actually GOT the book, "Oblivion" and so am now, having read it, in a position to complete the article, by putting forth the very reasonable theory advanced in Maihafer's book. However, I don't really want to touch the article until the title is corrected, because Cox's middle name was COLVIN and NOT "CALVIN". I would make the change myself but for the fact that I have no idea how to do so. Hi There (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what will it take for this to be corrected? Signed, Jeff, a curious reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.185.18.207 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring article so it tells everyone ...

[edit]

... why it has just one source. Book was authored officially by a poor high school teacher (Marshall Jacobs) who took it as far as it can go ...

(repeat from "edit summary" of today's edit) ... No, fellow anonymous Wikipedia editor, article doesn't contain "promo of book" or "mini-bio of author." It explains that book credits one author (Jacobs) who depended heavily on West Point expert (Maihafer) now dead. wildhartlivie, book did come out first with a vanity press in '96 but was published again three years later by this company that pays its authors.

second publisher

Lots of famous books and plays started as vanity, such as Arthur Miller's The Crucible.

Hence somebody tagged article calling into question its lone source. As long as Maihafer remains dead, and as long as Richard Colvin Cox was born 82 years ago, then what other source can ever be? Article clarifies book "proposes a solution." You can read solution in book. Bottom line: Cox probably lived until early '90s and he didn't want anyone to go public with old photographs of him from mass circulations Life and Coronet, and "a mysterious friend called George" probably was David Westervelt. He died of leukemia in his 40s in '69. His widow didn't know him when Cox vanished and she doesn't know anything about it. Jacobs said Mrs. Westervelt thinks the personality of the man she knew matches the man who tortured those people in Germany. Abusive talking on the phone with West Point receptionist also sounds like her man. She doesn't really know, right? David Westervelt was married to another woman in 1950s, dead now. That's the end of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.101 (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second source on the Cox mystery. If you read the book, you see that a second person investigated it so many years after Cox was declared legally dead in '57. The daily newspaper in his hometown ran a series of front-page articles in '82. The year '82 is old enough that the Mansfield paper isn't online, but anyone can get interlibrary loan of the microfilm. Or you can read a summary of it in the Jacobs book. But that's our singular, probably unreliable source, right? I told you about the legitimate publisher, Potomac Books, that took responsibility for the whole thing three years after Jacobs paid for vanity. Oh, well, whatever ... go to Mansfield, Ohio, go to dispute resolution, but for heaven's sake let's do something productive ... something! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.140.101 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article could have multiple legitimate sources

[edit]

I get it. The less I type, the more I reveal. Such as the fact that Potomac Books (not Potomac Press) isn't a vanity publisher. Its web site's instruction for aspiring writers is to submit your manuscript but ...

... don't call them; they'll call you.

The company was called Brassey's when it published the sole Richard Cox book in 1996. The web site says front and center it was "formerly Brassey's." Here is a library catalog that tells you the Cox book was published by Brassey's. It's one of the search results you get for the author Harry Maihafer.

Main source for this article was published by Brassey's in 1996, now known as Potomac Books.

There are other sources on the Cox mystery besides the book. The Mansfield News Journal ran two series of articles: one in 1982 and the other in January of 2010. Most installments began on the paper's front page. Maybe someone can add references to them in this Wikipedia article along with a new Wikipedia Commons pdf or two with permission from the News Journal.

Accusations of sockpuppetry can't change these two lies:

1 -- The only book ever published on the Cox mystery is a vanity-published book.

2 -- It's the only published source on Cox.

I'm sick of the lies.

I added something earlier today to the 7-11 discussion page.

Lies or mistakes? --2.25.130.27 (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something Missing?

[edit]

There seems to be something missing here, namely Jacobs & Maihafer's theory/account of Cox's life between his disappearance and his turning up the hospital in Bethesda, Maryland some 40 years later. Can anybody shed some light on this? Ttenchantr (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobs / Maihafer nonsense

[edit]

Cox was a legally-bound member of the US Army as a West Point cadet. His absence, if voluntary, constituted the crime of desertion. An offense both the US Army and the FBI took quite seriously. It is preposterous to believe that he would have been a patient in a US government hospital, able to dismiss attempts to identify his fugitive self with the excuse of not wanting to have his privacy invaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.29.215 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP?

[edit]

If he was declared legally dead in 1957, this is not a biography of a living person. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An "Event" in his life

[edit]

It is an event in his life, not a biography. Adamdaley (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions of the Jacobs investigation

[edit]

Having just finished reading oblivion I have to say that I am a confused as to why it's answer is not on this wikimedia page? Is the book considered to be untrustworthy or something? 125.209.158.144 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fiancee

[edit]

One question that immediately comes up is whether his fiancee ever heard from him and whether something may have changed their relationship. Is this not discussed in the literature?Bill (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betty never heard from him. The Oblivion book says that. During the massive search for him in New York, she was in Ohio thinking he was still committed to her. Brent Brant (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]