Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Notes on article

The paragraph “William Shelley, a foreman at the depository, also testified that he saw Oswald making a phone call on the first floor between 11:45 and 11:50 a.m.” could be up for change; Shelly’s testimony says he saw Oswald NEAR the phone, not talking on it.

The Jack Ruby article says in the “killing of Oswald” section, “Oswald made a cry of anguish and his manacled hands clutched at his abdomen as he writhed with pain, and he slumped to the concrete paving, where he moaned several times. A moaning Oswald was carried back into the basement level jail office. He lost consciousness shortly thereafter.” This could be added within the Oswald article, in the paragraph of the "murder" section, worded something along the lines of:

At 11:21 a.m. CST, Dallas nightclub operator Jack Ruby approached Oswald from the side of the crowd and shot him once in the abdomen at close range. Oswald made a cry of anguish and his manacled hands clutched at his abdomen as he writhed with pain, and he slumped to the concrete paving, where he moaned several times. A moaning Oswald was carried back into the basement level jail office. He lost consciousness shortly thereafter.

In addition, the paragraph about the police detective (identified as Billy Combest on the Jack Ruby article) who shouted an expletive as Ruby shot Oswald could be removed as this fits more appropriately on Ruby’s article and doesn’t connect with Oswald himself. The Ruby article even says “point blank range” rather than “close range”. Could this be another change as well, or does it depend on experts’ determination of the bullet range? The muzzle flash from Ruby’s pistol burned Oswald's sweater, from what I read.213.107.67.245 (talk) 07:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2021

Please add allegedly assassinated in the lines Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a former U.S. Marine who __________ assassinated United States president John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 2600:1017:D001:2223:0:16:FF1:AE01 (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: There seems to be significant controversy over this, with most settling that the use of allegedly is not desired (see this archive, there are other discussions too). We would need to overturn consensus before changing this, meaning it should be discussed at length before an edit request is made.  A S U K I T E  13:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Please change the link arising from Oswald's comment that he was a "patsy" to the actual link containing the pasty synonym as a "fall guy" term. As of now it is linked to the traditionally female name used often in colonial America (i.e., G.W. used it for wife Martha, T. Jefferson used it for a daughter, etc.). 192.5.110.7 (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done fixed the anchor point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Good the link was fixed... though I gotta say given the evolving meaning of "patsy" over the years, it is clear Oswald meant it in the older sense of "scapegoat" - he said he was arrested for the mere fact he was a resident of the Soviet Union - rather then the more current meaning of "fall guy," where those carrying out a crime set up one person to take the blame for it. Canada Jack (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Carolyn Arnold Witnessing Is Not Accurate

The article states that Depository secretary Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 1st floor hallway in the Lobby just prior to the assassination...In 1978 Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz went to Carolyn Arnold and showed her her FBI statements for the first time...Arnold read her Warren Commission statement where they quoted her as saying she saw a glimpse of Oswald in the Lobby foyer at 12:15 and adamantly insisted to Golz that she never said that...Arnold then proceeded to tell Golz that she was over 8 months pregnant the day of the assassination and because she did not want to stand too long in the sun she waited until the last minute to go out to watch the motorcade...Arnold told Golz that she had developed a habit of getting drinks of water because of her pregnancy and that she decided to get a drink just before going out to watch the motorcade...Arnold went to the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25 to get that drink and when she went in she saw Lee Harvey Oswald sitting alone at his regular seat eating lunch...She emphatically insisted to Golz that this is what she told the Commission and FBI...Partial proof of this is found in Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement that she was allowed to proof-read...That proof-read statement, that Arnold was allowed to check before signing, possessed a 12:25 time instead of the 12:15 time in the Commission statement that Arnold disclaimed...Needless to say, the 2nd floor lunch room location at 12:25 begs the question if Oswald would have been calmly eating lunch on the 2nd floor when he needed to be preparing for a major historical assassination in the 6th floor Sniper's Nest that would occur only 5 minutes later...It also necessarily begs the question if, since manager Truly and Officer Baker would see Oswald in that same location only 6 minutes later, if Oswald was in that lunch room the whole time like Dallas Police Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission when he said "Mr. BALL. With reference to where he was at the time the President was shot, did he tell you what floor of the building he was on? Mr. FRITZ. I feel sure that he told me he was on the second floor. Mr. BALL. Look at 136B. Mr. FRITZ. All right, sir. Mr. BALL. The second paragraph down, 136B. Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; second floor; yes, sir. He said he usually worked on the first floor. I asked him what part of the building at the time the President was shot. * * * * On his Facebook page Buell Frazier recently wrote that an un-named person told him there was a partly-eaten cheese sandwich and apple on the table where Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald eating lunch...Oswald had told Captain Fritz he brought a cheese sandwich to work that day...Gil Toff interviewed Depository employee Jack Dougherty in 1971...Dougherty told Toff that "Oswald was eating his lunch up in the 2nd floor lunch room while I was eating my lunch down in the Domino Room" (employee lunch room on the 1st floor)...This statement was not in Dougherty's Commission interview...Finally, Carolyn Arnold's real witnessing, according to her, was published in a Dallas Morning News article by Earl Golz in 1978 and I would say it is the more reliable source in this situation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6c3:4000:c5c0:ac97:b9de:eab9:b8ca (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done if you're making an edit request. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Earl Golz, "Was Oswald In The Window?" *Dallas Morning News* Nov 28 1978...(I try to sign-in to Wikipedia but nothing happens when I try the "Forgot my password" process)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6c3:4000:c5c0:18d4:c328:56e6:9e0d (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Much of what you have written above is not in the source. A source must confirm everything you want to add to the article. I'm not sure what you are asking for. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. And your source must completely confirm your requested edit. You can't synthesize a conclusion that is not clearly stated in the source.

For others who want to read the source, go to http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf. Sundayclose (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Question concerning Infobox terminology (Assassination) for Lee Harvey Oswald's cause of death

The Infobox gives Lee Harvey Oswald's cause of death as "Assassination". Assassination is defined as the murder of a prominent or important person, such as a head of state, politician, or member of a royal family. Oswald hardly fell into this category. He was a high school dropout who was employed as a $1.25 an hour order filler in a schoolbook depository. There can be no question that Oswald committed an assassination, but it is inappropriate to designate "assassination" as his cause of death. "Murdered" would be a much better entry. I decided to take this issue to the Talk Page instead of making the edit myself. Randy49 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no question whatsoever that he was prominent because of his actions (other words that can sometimes be used for "prominent" are "infamous and "notorious"). A prominent person doesn't have to be someone that we might admire, such as a president or royalty. The word has nothing to do with his character (high school dropout). Adolph Hitler was prominent, just not in a good way. Sundayclose (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't get the "Assassination" change either. Long standing text was "murder".Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither is incorrect in a technical sense, but assassination is more descriptive. He was killed because he was a notorious person who committed a horrific crime, rather than being murdered by a robber in a dark alley. The previous version was "Murder (gunshot wound)". There's no harm in use of "Assassination (gunshot wound)". Use of "assassination" is used in other articles for people who are widely disliked, such as George Lincoln Rockwell. Sundayclose (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The circumstances of the assassination also have to be taken into account. He was not just murdered somewhere, by some unknown murderer. He was assassinated in police custody, before the eyes of the entire nation in a live television broadcast, less than 48 hours from the assassination of the President. It was a Sunday morning, in the basement of the Dallas Police headquarters, in public, on a live television broadcast, and under police custody and surveillance. The main and only suspect at that point of having committed the crime was wiped out on the spot, at gun point, under police custody and on national television news cameras. One of the most bizarre and unprecedented public political assassinations ever seen and recorded. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I still lean towards "murder" for the simple reason that we are talking something that appears to be a completely random, spur of the moment thing against someone who was not very prominent prior to his crime. Most definitions of "assassination" (including the assassination page here [1]) involve a act against a (big name) politician for a significant reason. To steal a joke from a Chris Rock routine: MLK was assassinated, JFK was assassinated....LHO got shot.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, however, the term "assassination" is not related to how prominent someone was prior to the act(s) that made them prominent, and the term is not limited to politicians, royalty, or any particular group of people, nor is it limited to the person's character or popularity. And "assassination" is a more precise definition than "murder" for someone like Oswald. I'll take your comment about Chris Rock as humor since his comment has no bearing on the content of Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The act that made him prominent happened a grand total of 2 days before he was gunned down. (With no virtually no premediation at all.) Apparently over LHO smirking or something like that. How many "assassinations" happen over facial expressions?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Give me a break. Please give us a reliable source that Jack Ruby killed Oswald with no premeditation and because Oswald was "smirking". Ruby was upset with events around the time of JFK's assassination related to anti-Kennedy ads that Ruby (a Jew) thought were coming from anti-Jewish groups. He was hanging around the Dallas police station at the time of Oswald's arrest two days before he killed Oswald. He impersonated a reporter at a press conference about JFK's assassination by the DA, and had placed a loaded revolver (later used to kill Oswald) in his pocket. He didn't just randomly happen to be at the police station when Oswald was being taken out of the station. He was there hoping to kill Oswald. He wasn't spontaneously overcome with rage when he saw Oswald. He confessed to premeditation. Everything related to JFK, Oswald, and Ruby was one of the most recorded, investigated, and reported set of events in history. Please don't try to rewrite history. Sundayclose (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

When "prominent" is used in the definition of "assassination", the word is intended to convey a POSITIVE interpretation. Powerful, influential, and high-ranking government people are assassinated. A two-bit lowlife like Oswald certainly did not fit into that category. The edit should have been immediately reverted back to "Murdered by gunshot". Randy49 (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Randy49: Did you even bother to read what I wrote and click the links that I provided. Here it is again. "Prominent" can mean infamous and "notorious (to read the sources you have to actually click the links). Someone who is infamous is not a "positive interpretation". Repeating yourself with nothing to back up your uninformed claims does nothing to help your argument. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not one person's opinion. So no, the edit will not be "immediately reverted" just because you don't like it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If it was premeditated, what was he doing hanging around Western Union when LHO was set to be transferred? Even Gerald Ford said it was "pure happenstance" that Ruby encountered LHO in that basement. Ruby carried a gun all the time, mainly because he frequently carried money. (And in fact, he had a wad of money on him when he was taken into custody.) As far as the fact he "impersonated a reporter"...the fact is: Ruby was hanging around the cops all the time. (Well before the assassination.) They frequented his club, and he knew a bunch of them. As far as a source for the smirk, it was a buddy of his. (See the 2004 ABC special 'The Kennedy Assassination-Beyond Conspiracy'.) Ruby himself said he didn't plan it.....sure he talked about how terrible it all was, and what a slime LHO was.....but this was just "Sparky" (as he was called) just flipping his lid.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Moved to the bottom; please don't break a discussion in the middle) Premeditation does not require weeks of planning by the criminal. "Someone premeditates a crime by considering it before committing it. Premeditation requires that the defendant think out the act, no matter how quickly—it can be as simple deciding to pick up a hammer that is lying nearby and to use it as a weapon." Wikipedia goes by the sources, not a two word statement by Gerald Ford taken out of context, or a Wikipedia editor's synthesis of cherry-picked bits and pieces of comments, innuendo, and personal opinion that have developed over 50 years. Read Jack Ruby. But this isn't a class on premeditation; it's a discussion about whether "assassination" should be used in the article, and the definition of assassination applies. There's no need for us to quibble about how you define "premeditated". This issue requires consensus to change the article. There is no consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone who knew Ruby personally described him as impulsive. Wally Weston (for example) told Frontline in 1993: "What kind of a guy was Jack Ruby? Impulsive. He had a quick temper. That's why they called him "Sparky."". But premeditation or no....this still doesn't qualify as any "assassination" because he doesn't qualify as prominent (despite whatever outside references you can find). On wiki assassination page, prominent is referred to as "a head of state, head of government, politician, member of a royal family, or CEO". Needless to say, LHO was none of that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

We have beaten this dead horse about premeditation quite enough, especially since this has become a sidetrack of the actual issue in this discussion. It's time for us to drop the stick and let the consensus process about the word "assassination" follow its course. We have made our points about premeditation, and this isn't the time or place for that debate. As for how Wikipedia describes assassination, the important words that you omitted are "such as a head of state ..." (bold added). The sources you flippantly dismissed, they are reliable sources, as reliable as Wikipedia. So once again, there is no consensus at this point to change this article. My final comment unless someone brings something to the table that hasn't already been said. Sundayclose (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a consensus for this to change at this point. Just stating my case in case others weigh in. (So I'm not sure what you are getting so hot under the collar about.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about the assassination issue, but when I checked my collar, it was quite cool, and when I looked at my edits, I couldn't find that I said that anyone said there is a consensus. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. Anyway, I'm outa here for now. Thanks to everyone for an interesting discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to check it again as your tone is quite strident. In any case, your posts at 1:42 & 2:12 both said "there is no consensus" (as if to establish that). Don't worry: I think that is recognized.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked again and saw a statement of fact ("there is no consensus"), not a strident tone (defined as "loud and harsh"). A strident tone, for example, would be "Your opinions are so DUMB you'll never get consensus" (notice the all-caps that make it loud), but I don't see that I made such a statement. Anyway, the appropriate venue for discussing an editor's tone is WP:ANI, not here. So please take it up there if you need to discuss further. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say the "there is no consensus" was part of the problem. I was talking about stuff like "Give me a break.... your uninformed claims....you flippantly dismissed...", etc, etc.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot about those comments. That must have been because I was "so hot under the collar". Shall we take this to the most appropriate place, WP:ANI? Or do we just continue wasting everyone's else's time here with a wall of text? Sundayclose (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with stopping it here. (If you do indeed have a problem with a "wall of text", not sure why you keep replying....especially considering the fact you've said several times in this you were stopping.) It was just a friendly reminder about WP:CIVILITY.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021

In Infobox, change information for "Children" to "June and Audrey". This is more specific. Randy49 (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry, we don't name children in the infobox unless they are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Sundayclose (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Assertion Oswald killed JFK

Your assertion that that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy should be moderately qualified.

It should be rewritten to say something on the order that, “Repeated investigations have concluded Oswald assassinated Kennedy.”

There are several reasons why this qualification is needed. They are:

• Oswald was not tried and convicted in a court of law.
• Numerous writers and researchers believe Oswald did not kill JFK.
• A review of investigations concluded the FBI and CIA were uncooperative in the investigation conducted by the Warren Commission.
• All documents relating to the assassination still have not been released. These could include information exculpatory to Oswald.
• A qualified statement of the type mentioned above would be historically accurate.

For these reasons, the bold assertion by WIKI that Oswald killed John F. Kennedy should be moderately qualified, If WIKI is to be taken seriously as a source for information on the Worldwide Web.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely, Stephen E. Smith 2600:1700:B2D0:7EA0:21B6:25E0:32A4:E760 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed at length in the past with a clear consensus that Oswald should be described as the assassin, with no qualifiers. See the archives. Sundayclose (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Request related to the Police interrogation section

Copying a request from my talk page. Firefangledfeathers 17:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wonder if you can fix this minor goof on the Lee Harvey Oswald page: the article says that Oswald told Holmes he was “working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs”. Looking though Harry Holmes testimony, especially on page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant where Oswald said he encountered the officer:

...as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions... Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.

Based on this, I think the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section should be reflected to say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald replied that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.”62.254.68.112 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

IP User, can you help me understand what the goof is? Firefangledfeathers 16:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The current words, “went downstairs where he encountered Baker” give the impression Oswald said the encounter took place at the second floor lunchroom but Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). I propose the paragraph could be rewritten to reflect Holmes’ testimony something like: “Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.”213.107.50.218 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC) copied from my talkpage Firefangledfeathers 18:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the current language implies that Oswald claims the encounter happened on the second floor; it just says "downstairs". Firefangledfeathers 18:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022

Recommend change: “who assassinated John F. Kennedy” to “who allegedly assassinated John F. Kennedy.”

Recommend change: “Oswald shot and killed Kennedy” to “Oswald allegedly shot and killed Kennedy”

Recommend adding allegedly before all inferences of Oswald killing Kennedy, as Oswald was never found guilty of killing Kennedy and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. 65.33.12.186 (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

<ec>The dead aren't tried in court. Two congressional investigations found that Oswald killed Kennedy. The only question was whether he had help. This is a perennial question, and has always been rejected on Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe someone can create a bot to answer these particular edit requests. EEng 04:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Request re where LHO encountered officer in Depository

Request transferred from my User talk:EEng:

Wonder if you can fix this minor goof in the police interrogation section on Lee Harvey Oswald article: the current words, “went downstairs where he encountered Baker” give the impression Oswald said the encounter took place at the second floor lunchroom but Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). I propose the paragraph could be rewritten to reflect Holmes’ testimony something like: “Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.” 213.107.50.254 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It's true that at [2] Holmes relates that LHO described encountering "a police officer ... just before I got to the front door", but there's another description of the same encounter in the prior paragraph which is somewhat ambiguous, but faintly suggests the encounter was in the 2nd-floor lunchroom; and that prior-paragraph description has too many cites for me to look through. Maybe someone else will be motivated. I have to say that we really, really shouldn't be using the Warren Report so heavily; there are plenty of good secondary sources we could be using. EEng 08:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: I got the same request from an IP and pasted it above. I agree that the section massively over-reliant on the Warren Report. Firefangledfeathers 15:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Not just any one section, but all articles related to JFK's death. 60 years later it's largely a primary source. EEng 23:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald was never found guilty in a court of law

Lee Harvey Oswald was never found guilty in the trial of killing John F. Kennedy, this is because he was shot dead before he could stand trial. This article should be changed to say that he was "accused of assassinating" instead of asserting that he was guilty. Jacob81 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a perennial assertion. Death does not negate guilt, the dead have no right of trial or presumption of innocence, and two separate investigations assigned Oswald's responsibility. The only question is whether or not he had help. And you've been advised of this before. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. I mean, look at poor John Wilkes Booth: robbed of his chance to defend himself in court, he's been unfairly maligned for 150 years. Personally, I think Mrs. Lincoln was the real killer. EEng 04:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand she gave Our American Cousin a five star review. Acroterion (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

See the archives. This one has been kicked around quite a bit.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Shooting from book depository

Stating LHO shot the President as fact not alleged but proven is questionable. 184.53.48.38 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Please review that talk archives. We've been through this a thousand times. EEng 07:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Leave it up on the damn talk page then, if you don't want people to keep doing this 2A00:23C6:6581:BC01:2F30:BF67:78F0:4A55 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this Talk page needs an FAQ section. Muzilon (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Ella German

Why is there so much space given to Ella German? She wasnt notable in her own right, Oswald never married her and should only be afforded a few brief sentences in the article rather than an entire section. Do any other editors share my thoughts and feel her story needs to be cut down? Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never quite gotten why so much space is devoted to this subject either.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It is the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ella German where the decision was made to merge content about Ella German into this article. I agree that the amount of detail is excessive and that it should be trimmed way back. Cullen328 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I can offer a little bit of explanation. Although I haven't edited heavily over the past few years, my experience with Wikipedia was that there were a ton of sub-articles related to the assassination of JFK that served as a breeding ground for the conspiracy-minded to insert all sorts of questionable sources, and it was often difficult to merge these articles. When I first encountered the Ella German article, it was a stub cited to three conspiracy sources and a primary source. I figured that if Wikipedia was to have an article on her, it should be done properly with reliable secondary sources. You can see my June 2014 edit here. Given the merge, I'm all in favor of trimming away. BTW: I still take issue with Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding people notable for only one event that after all these years still notes Howard Brennan even though he is discussed in fewer reliable secondary sources that Ella German. - Location (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I've cut the material on German to a reasonable amount i.e. about 4 sentences [3]. EEng 04:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Do the cites have to say Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy 500 million times? It's really tiresome and pompous. EEng 06:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

what do you suggest? Also see WP:POINT. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

How about "Warren Report"? Also, what's your WP:POINT point? EEng 14:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.

> The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually.

So I am a newcomer to using a "talk" page - this is my second attempt, the first was deleted by Acroterion last night and I cannot now undo the deletion. Is that how different opinions are normally treated?

I thought talk pages were here for "talking". I also thought that people might actually follow guidelines here: > Assume good faith > Be polite and avoid personal attacks > Be welcoming to newcomers

I had simply tried to call out some very unfriendly sarcastic comments on a prior thread that clearly violated the guidelines. I guess maybe it is pointless to challenge the Warren Report here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald&diff=next&oldid=1097194678 Vonuan (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Vonuan, the purpose of an article talk page is to discuss specific actionable proposals to improve the article, based on published reliable sources. It is not to challenge (or defend) the Warren Report based on the personal opinions of various editors. Please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Cullen328 (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• WIkipedia talkpages aren't fora for your personal reflections on the topic, nor is this a forum for the promotion of conspiracy theories about other editors or Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• In the spirit of openness, I'll just disclose here and now that I'm definitely dominated by the powers who killed JFK. It's a lifestyle choice. EEng 00:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  EEng, I always suspected that after you posted that William McKinley image on my user page. I haven't removed it for fear of the KGB/CIA/Mafia/LBJ faction/Mexican Fidel Castro agents/New Orleans nutcase/Trotskyist/Southern KKK segregationists/ZOG/Texas oilmen/Bilderberg/Bohemian Club/Illuminati agents who all coordinated seamlessly to kill JFK. Did I leave anybody out? Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  SPEBSQSA. EEng 02:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Vonuan, Humorless pedantry from those who claim to *know* the Truth is a very great affliction on WIkipedia, and on this topic in particular. Sometimes we get tired of it. Acroterion (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• I would add that at least one point made by Vounan above (who I assume is the same person who posted the removed post about the Warren Report etc) does warrant some action, and that is the creation of a FAQ on this page and probably a few other pages. For example on the "no conviction at trial" point, but also on the Single Bullet Theory, (despite the presence of an entire article on the subject), the number of shots, etc., as Vounan has, like many others, repeated fallacies promoted by the conspiracy community. Like a zig-zagging single bullet. Clearly, a great many people who criticize the Warren Report haven't bothered to read it, or the HSCA report. If they had read those reports, they would see the chain of evidence that points to Oswald as perpetrator, and would not repeat issues that were in some cases addressed in 1964 - like the "changed" motorcade route. Or the fact that the vast majority of witnesses - something like 95% - not only heard a maximum of three shots, but also reported those shots came from one direction, basically eliminating the possibility of multiple snipers. Not sure where we would plonk these FAQ's for input, I guess on the relevant talk pages? Canada Jack (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Allegedly"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Note - The instigator of the edit-war, has been indef banned. GoodDay (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there's been some sort of edit war going on over including the world "allegedly". Could we reach a consensus first? Liliana ^(UwU) 00:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

What edit war? There is a longstanding consensus that "allegedly" keeps getting inappropriately inserted by conspiracy enthusiasts under various pretexts, which are rapidly reverted. This is not going to stop anyhime soon, as long as there are conspiracy enthusiasts. This article is not obligated to cater to their wishes. Please read the archives of this page. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty then, if it's a conspiracy theorist doing that then the consensus is already "don't add it". Thanks for clarifying. Liliana ^(UwU) 00:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Zarvanov is conducting a slow edit war against consensus, using the long-debunked idea that somebody who died before trial cannot be described as a murderer. The dead have no legal rights to trial and cannot be defamed, and nobody asserts that John Wilkes Booth should be the "alleged" assassin of Abraham Lincoln, or that the 911 hijackers are "alleged." Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty then, if it's a conspiracy theorist doing that then the consensus is already "don't add it". No, it's because the major investigations concluded he shot and killed the president, so using the term "allegedly" is not appropriate as we'd be misrepresenting their conclusions. As for being a "conspiracy theorist" supposedly being a disqualification, one of those investigations which concluded Oswald killed the president also concluded... there was a conspiracy. Canada Jack (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• The allegedly stuff I can forgive, but if it were up to me I'd have him blocked for not knowing how to use hyphens correctly. EEng 01:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, the Warren commissions' conclusion is that Oswald was JFK's assassin & to date, that conclusion hasn't been overturned. Leave out "Allegedly" & other such descriptions. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the instigator of this edit war is now indef'd, maybe this section could be closed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary break

Just have a look at this link from the Library of Congress: [4]

Quote: "The 'sixth-floor' corner window of the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas, Texas, where Lee Harvey Oswald, the presumptive assassin of President John F. Kennedy, found a perch above the plaza on Nov. 22, 1963. It is hyphenated. Are you suggesting that I and the Library of Congress are incorrect?

Here is another such example: [5]

Quote: "A woman has been arrested on suspicion of murder after an 18-month-old baby died following a fall from a 'sixth-floor' window.

Perhaps you should telephone the Irish Independent and their educated journalists and inform them that they are incorrect?

Here is yet another example from WIKIPEDIA: [6]

Quote: The Texas School Book Depository, now known as the Dallas County Administration Building, is a 'seven-floor' building

Perhaps you should edit it, if it irks you?

Another example from The LA TIMES: [7]

"It's a 1940 Italian-made rifle, like the one Lee Harvey Oswald fired from a 'sixth-floor' window at the Texas School Book Depository,"

By all means, write a letter to the LA Times, if it irks you?

These are examples of good Journalism from reliable sources.

And for what it's worth, I don't believe there were a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. But, you can't state publicly, that an individual whether dead or alive is the actual preparator of a crime, if they've never been

convicted in a court of Law. So, with that said, Lee Harvey Oswald is and always will be the alleged assassin in Lawful terms, even though the preponderance of evidence indicates he was the sole preparator !!

Therefore it should be written that he, LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS THE ALLEGED ASSASSIN OF JFK AND ALLEGED SLAYER OF OFFICER J.D TIPPIT.

For example: [8]

Quote: '"accused' assassin of U.S. Pres. John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963

Another example: [9]

Quote "the alleged assassin"

Another example, from THE LA TIMES [10]

"the sniper’s nest from which Lee Harvey Oswald is said to have shot President John F. Kennedy."

"Kennedy's accused assassin."

Is the LA TIMES incorrect also, or is the institutionalized bias and ignorance of some amateur Wikipedia editors better than the LA TIMES?

There are many more such examples.

It is The Sixth Floor Museum, which is not hyphenated !! Zarvonov (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no comment to make on the content matter on this page. With regard to the hyphens, purely in the spirit of offering guidance on how to interpret our MOS, in the examples given above the hyphen is being correctly used in a descriptive phrase, modifying the main noun (e.g. 'sixth-floor window', where 'window' is the main noun). The outlier is the 'Sixth Floor Museum', which is the name of a particular museum so they can style it however they like. It remains the case that 'on the sixth floor', when it is the sixth floor itself that one is referring to, would be unhyphenated. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• The hyphens are correct. Zarvonov (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Zarvonov, we won't be writing to the Library of Congress or Irish Independent about their use of sixth-floor, because the examples are all correct. There are situations in which sixth floor (no hyphen) is correct, and situations in which sixth-floor (with hyphen) is correct, and you'll see both in the article -- each in its correct places. Another editor has explained the difference to you here [11] but you're not paying attention. If you can't understand stuff like hyphens no one's going to waste further time trying to explain the allegedly issue to you. EEng 17:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Now, I've made my points fairly. Thank you. Zarvonov (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your "allegedly" argument is bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  We do not say that John Wilkes Booth allegedly killed Abraham Lincoln and we do not say that Charles Whitman allegedly killed 18 people in Austin, Texas and we do not say that Mohamed Atta allegedly was the operational ringleader of the September 11 attacks and we do not say that Stephen Paddock allegedly killed 60 people in Las Vegas. And we are definitely not going to use "allegedly" about the person who murdered JFK and J. D. Tippit on November 22, 1963. It is not going to happen, in no small part because it is a dog whistle for conspiracy theorists. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a "right" or "wrong" issue; it's a style issue. Canada Jack (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you're talking about the hyphens, no, it's a right-versus-wrong issue. (Note the hyphens. Another way I could have written it is It's an issue of right versus wrong, wherein you will note the lack of hyphens.) EEng 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, it isn't. I've been in journalism 35+ years and if you'd like, I can pull out the pages on this issue from the Chicago Manual of Style. The style has evolved to dropping hyphens over the past few decades, except in cases where ambiguity arises, now it's pulling back the other way. Canada Jack (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then you better pull those pages. There are stylistic choices and conventional exceptions in some narrow situations (e.g. high school vs. high-school), but in the case at hand there's zero wiggle room. EEng 20:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, style often trips people up. A classic example is the use of split infinitives. Long not considered acceptable, now frequently used. Or the placements of quotation marks inside or outside punctuation marks. Usage depends on the style in play, like American vs British English. A recent style issue came in with the use of the word "Black" to describe people - is the "b" capped or lower case? The Style in North America, at least, is to cap the "b."

  As for hyphens:

  Chicago Manual of Style, Section 6.41 from the 14th edition: "Formerly, adjectival compounds, except those beginning with an adverb ending in ly, were generally hyphenated before the noun they modified and open after the noun. The University of Chicago Press now takes the position that the hyphen may be omitted in all cases were there is little or no risk of ambiguity or hesitation. It also means, of course, that when ambiguity is likely, the compound adjective, whatever its position, should be hyphenated."

  The examples they use are "fast sailing ship," where it is ambiguous whether it refers to a ship which is now sailing fast, or to a sailing ship that can go fast. By hyphenating "fast-sailing" that ambiguity can be eliminated if the former sense is intended. But the phrase "much loved friend" has no risk of being misread so does not require a hyphen.

  With these rules in mind, "sixth floor window" does not require a hyphen as there is no risk of ambiguity, as per Style.

  All this being said, I've not seen if there is an update on the Style in the current edition. Canada Jack (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Just let me add to clarify - I am speaking about the cases where there is an adjectival compound before a noun; there it is purely a style issue. But this does not apply when it is a stand-alone compound. As noted earlier, phrases like "on the sixth-floor of the building..." are never correct in terms of hyphens, there is no alternate Style there. Canada Jack (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I fear we've been talking at cross purposes; I thought you were saying Chicago would now endorse He was on the sixth-floor -- you can imagine my skepticism. Having said that, I am surprised at the extent to which the passage you quote implies that the unwashed hoi-polloi have infiltrated Chicago. But of course, standards have slipped since Turabian died. EEng 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, in retrospect perhaps. We agree there is no hyphen between an adjective and a noun, but whether there is one between the words of an adjective clause in front of or behind a noun is where the style change is I am talking of. While that is here too, the revert from the main page was over the former, not the latter, though Zarvanov brings up only the latter here, missing the point of the revert.

  As for Turabian, this was from the 14th edition in 1993 which was the first out after her death. So this shift in style has been around a while. Doesn't mean everyone follows it, of course... Canada Jack (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  The hyphenation issue, that is! Canada Jack (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  Philistine! EEng 19:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And people wonder why I love Wikipedia. Endless entertainment and occasional-facts. --Pete (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes. I do indeed remember the "British Isles" and "Derry/Londonderry" disputes. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

Change "She said that Oswald considered Walker to be the leader of a "fascist organization"." so that the word "fascist" links to the page "Fascism" instead of "Fascist (insult)". 193.240.154.120 (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Already done Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

"Convicted posthumously"

To avoid the continuing problem, I slightly changed the first sentence to "Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a U.S. Marine veteran convicted posthumously of assassinating John F. Kennedy, then president of the United States, on November 22, 1963." Perhaps changing assassinated to convicted will help take care of the problem. Breastone (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of this solution. I would rather rehash the argument a few times per month than fail to state up front what Oswald is most notable for doing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I will respect whatever the consensus is. But I prefer to stick with the fact that's been verified. It is a fact he was convicted. But there is great debate about whether or not he actually did it. But again I'll go with the consensus. Breastone (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Really? He was "convicted posthumously" [12]? The Warren Commission found that Oswald assassinated Kennedy, as the article explains, but that was not a trial and conviction, and that edit is not an improvement.

The article clearly covers the issues and controversies. Let's not muddy the waters. I agree with user:Acroterion's suggestion of adding a FAQ explaining why the article simply says "assassinated" and adding a comment in the article pointing to the FAQ. Meters (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

As noted below, Oswald was most certainly not convicted, since he was in turn killed before trial, fueling a million conspiracy theories of varying credibility. However, public investigations found that he was the assassin, which have the same factual force. We therefore must call Oswald the assassin. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This suggestion makes no historical sense. There's no such thing as a posthuous conviction. EEng 01:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia say he was an Assassin or Convicted of Assassination?

There is continuing debate about whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F. Kennedy. The article itself states "...public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that the official version tells the whole truth of the events...."

So which of these opening sentences do you prefer?

1) Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a U.S. Marine veteran convicted posthumously of assassinating John F. Kennedy, then president of the United States, on November 22, 1963.

2) Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a U.S. Marine veteran who assassinated John F. Kennedy, then president of the United States, on November 22, 1963.

Breastone (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Leave it as the long-standing "assassinated." The article covers the issues and fringe theories. And as far as I know there was no posthumous trial (if such a thing even exists). The Warren Commission found that Oswald assassinated Kennedy, but it was not a trial and did not convict him. Meters (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Meters. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• He was never convicted, since there are no posthumous trials. However both the Warren Commission and the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations found that he assassinated Kennedy. The HSCA suggests that the main question was whether Oswald had help, not that he was not responsible. Acroterion (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• I can't believe we have to keep going through this. It's like being in hell, only more boring. EEng 01:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. Old version, obviously.
  • It’s increasingly clear that we need an FAQ, at least so we can say “see the FAQ” and save many valuable keystrokes. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Acroterion, I gave you a ping in one of the discussions above regarding a 2015 proposal. Should we do that again, and possible create a notice at RFC to involve a wider range of editors? - Location (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• "Presumed assassin" would seem to cover it. Certainly not "convicted" as there was no trial while he was alive. -- Infrogmation (talk)

  No, not "presumed" and not "convicted" and not "posthumous". Just "assassinated ". Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FAQ

Given the regularity with which the pseudo-legalistic fallacy pops up that Oswald must be described as "alleged" or "accused," we probably ought to have an FAQ. Many of these instances appear in peripheral articles such as the Texas School Book Depository or "Marina Oswald, so it ought to be suitable for deployment to other articles as needed. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes editors will insert comments saying "don't change this" or whatever. That doesn't seem like the ideal approach. Where would this FAQ be? At the top of the talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some hidden text, perhaps referring over to an FAQ at the top of the talkpage. That would cover both bases. Acroterion (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

That might work. Have to get consensus, of course. But it could serve as a model. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Poor Acroterion's been pushing for an FAQ for at least seven years. In this 2015 discussion, discussion got as far as some draft language, proposed (begrudgingly) by Location:

• Q1: Why does the article describe Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin of John F. Kennedy?
  • A1: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia so this article presents the accepted version of the events according to reliable sources. Various discussions on this talk page have resulted in the consensus that reliable sources state that Kennedy was shot and killed by Oswald. If you disagree with the current status, you are welcome to bring your concerns to the article talk page. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page and try to explain how your viewpoint provides new arguments or information that may lead to a change in consensus. Please be sure to be polite and support your views with citations from reliable sources.
• Q2: Why does the article not describe Oswald as the alleged assassin of John F. Kennedy when he was never tried or convicted in a court of law?
  • A2: The legal contexts of "burden of proof" and "presumption of innocence" apply to someone who is being tried for a crime. Although Oswald was not tried or convicted in a court of law, reliable sources firmly establish his culpability.

A good starting point? It would be nice to cite a source or two, but I'd rather have this than nothing, and I'm not sure what source best encapsulates the mainstream view here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, thanks for the ping. The "begrudgingly" adverb might be suitable in that at the time I wrote, "I'm skeptical that an FAQ will change things around here." It looks like there was very little feedback to my proposal, with Acroterion (not sure he has actually been "pushing for this any more than I have) and Canada Jack in favor of it and Joegoodfriend not thinking it was necessary. I still support adding this to the Talk page... and I still don't think it will make a difference. - Location (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a reasonable place to start, and it can be put into place immediately, then supported by by references. Since it's not an article, it's a bit different from the way we'd approach it out in article space. I agree with Location that it won't change things, but FAQs are more for the effect of saving repeated responses than any real belief that anyone will read them before commenting. Acroterion (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I humbly suggest instead:

• Q1: Why does the article describe Oswald as the assassin of John F. Kennedy, instead of the alleged assassin, given that he was never convicted in a court of law?
  • A1: A legal conviction is required before government may label someone a criminal and punish him. But a legal conviction is not required for scholars and historians to draw their own conclusions based on the evidence: they may conclude that a person never convicted of some crime was, in fact, guilty (e.g. John Wilkes Booth); or they may conclude that someone who was convicted was, in fact, innocent (e.g. Timothy Evans). Although Oswald was killed before he could be brought to trial, reliable sources firmly establish that he fired the shots that killed Kennedy.
• Q2: What if I still disagree?
  • A2: Read the discussions found in this page's archives before proposing that Oswald be described as Kennedy's "alleged assassin" or the like. Proposals rehashing old arguments will go nowhere.

Perhaps A2 should give some kind of query link leading to the key among the old discussions, but (if truth be told) you cannot throw a dart anywhere in the archives without hitting one of them. Also, to be really complete A1 would have to address BLP exceptions, but I don't think that would be fruitful. EEng 00:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• While I like parts of this, most of the complaints have been of a pseudo-legal nature from people whose idea of the law is awfully hazy, so I think we need to cover the fact that being dead before being tried doesn't exonerate anybody. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Of course we're taking about people who misunderstand the law, otherwise we wouldn't need an FAQ. My impression over the years, however, is that people are focused not on Oswald's death, but rather on the simple fact that he was never tried (for whatever reason). And my text addresses exactly that.

  BTW, there's some irony in that death-exonerates argument, given that a person's death makes it actually more easy to label them a criminal than it was while that person remained alive. EEng 06:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. While I am open to reading suggestions from those who think it could be better, I like this proposal much better the one I made in 2015. - Location (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  I like it too. I created Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/FAQ and transcluded it in this page's header. I figure something is better than nothing, and further improvement can happen while it's up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Added inline comment pointing to talkpage and FAQ Meters (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  My work is done here! UP, UP, AND AWAY! EEng 00:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you everybody. Never again will we have somebody come here and want to insert allegedlies ever again! Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  

  Let's not kid ourselves. It will have zero effect. But at least now we we can give our answers in shorthand. EEng 03:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Other investigations and dissenting theories

I noticed that the "Other investigations and dissenting theories" section was expanded to include the following:

In 1978, former CIA paymaster and accountant James Wilcott testified before the HSCA, stating that Lee Harvey Oswald was a "known agent" of the Central Intelligence Agency.[279] Wilcott and his wife, Elsie (also a former employee of the CIA) later repeated those claims in a story by the San Francisco Chronicle.[280]

The first is a primary source and the second is a reliable secondary source. In this primary source, Deputy Inspector General of the CIA Scott D. Breckenridge sent a memo to Inspector General of the CIA John H. Waller stating that Oswald was gone from Japan by the time Wilcott got there, and that any information Wilcott had about Oswald would have to have been second hand. That seems notable to give balance to a conspiracy theory. Should that be included, too, or should it all be scrapped to avoid bloat? - Location (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There are more holes in the Wilcott story than that. If it stays, it should note some of these issues.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is about various people claiming they heard that Oswald was connected to the CIA. Examples of hearsay are a dime a dozen in the JFK conspiracy lore, and sometimes they are even published in reliable sources. None of the claims received coverage outside a few blurbs in newspapers, so I am removing the paragraph per WP:UNDUE. The main conspiracy article is already bloated enough and there is no reason to let that happen here. - Location (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"There are more holes in the Wilcott story than that."- Can you point out the holes?

Apparently you know more about the three people that actually worked for CIA. It also says "Other investigations and dissenting theories" You should just delete that section if that's the case you are arguing for. They are all conspiracy theories. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

For starters, he [Wilcott] claimed a CIA case officer came up to him (after the assassination) and volunteered that he drew money for Oswald. (Or the "Oswald project", he couldn't remember which.) Not only could Wilcott not identify this case officer, he didn't know Oswald's cryptonym. He also said he didn't even bother to look (even at his own records) as to any hint that LHO had anything to do with the CIA. For these (and other reasons, this is really just scratching the surface) the HSCA considered his story "not worthy of belief". Which is why you would be hard-pressed to find too many taking this seriously in RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Note the many details that should have been included in Mr. Wilcott's Executive Testimony posted were not permitted by HSCA counsel Michael Goldsmith, including the CIA cryptonym for the Oswald Project, the fact that he had clearly passed a voice stress lie exam, and that he knew many names of CIA personnel he wasn't allowed to state. He also had the support of his wife that worked for the CIA. However, I understand your point. HSCA did consider his story not worthy of belief. I personally wouldn’t trust anything said by any USA agency or employee about James Wilcott and/or his wife.

So aside from CIA couple story, Is there is anything below that can be added to this page?

(copyvio removed)

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5208-james-wilcott/page/2/ Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "Note the many details that should have been included in Mr. Wilcott's Executive Testimony posted were not permitted by HSCA counsel Michael Goldsmith, including the CIA cryptonym for the Oswald Project"? Wilcott couldn't name LHO's cryptonym. That's the point. And the CIA had no "Oswald Project". (At least until he was killed.) But the whole point here is: we shouldn't be presenting all these CTs (in-depth) without context. (And RS. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com is not a RS.) I agree with Location, there is a whole other article for that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed the lengthy pasted material from Education Forum. Unless there's some hard to find open license, the content is presumptively copyrighted, and we can't paste so much of it here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't much more to add other than the Wilcotts' were on the editorial board of Philip Agee's CovertAction Quarterly, so it is a bit disingenuous for anyone to imply that they were just out to tell the honest truth about the CIA. Also, the Education Forum is a conspiracy theorists wet dream, and is a spin-off from Spartacus Educational which for years has been shot down as reliable source for JFK material in WP:RSN. For future reference, Mr. Wilcott's claims are discussed on pages 198 to 200 of the HSCA report. - Location (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

CIA accountant James Wilcott testified that he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” Contemporaneous HSCA notes indicate Wilcott told staffers, but wasn't allowed to say in Executive session, that the cryptonym for the CIA's "Oswald Project" was RX-ZIM.

Can you look at this page https://educationforum.ipbhost.com and Check if there is anything we can add here? Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5208-james-wilcott/page/2/ Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, educationforum.ipbhost.com is not a RS. And it wasn't a matter of Wilcott not being allowed to say anything....he said point blank in his testimony he didn't remember. He gave the investigators a cryptonym (which no one has ever been able to verify the prefix of (i.e. the RX part))....but under oath, he couldn't even come up with that part.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, HERE is Wilcott's testimony. On line 8 of page 13 (and on various parts of page 47) he states that he could not remember what the cryptonym was. - Location (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• I must say, "The Oswald Project" is a most cunning way to hide payments to someone named, um, Oswald. Who would ever guess? EEng 18:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

True. It's about as bad as hiring a high school drop out who couldn't drive a car, operate a camera or radio, and attracted attention everywhere he went as a agent. :)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this something that we can add here?

https://www.newspapers.com/image/223700580/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22file%22%20%22cia%22%20%22201%22&match=1

CIA was in contact with Oswald at least until six weeks before the murder.

The research was done by Dr. John M. Newman Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wilcott told staffers that the cryptonym for the CIA's Project was RX-ZIM. But like you said, you consider this CIA couple to be fraud. I am not adding Wilcott here.

I am asking you if I can add this.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/223700580/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22file%22%20%22cia%22%20%22201%22&match=1

CIA was in contact with Oswald at least until six weeks before the murder. The research was done by Dr. John M. Newman Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

RX-ZIM. Not "The Oswald Project" Wilcott told staffers, but wasn't allowed to say in Executive session, that the cryptonym for the CIA's this Oswald Project was RX-ZIM. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Executive session ... Executive Action -- MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE??? EEng 19:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/223700580/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22file%22%20%22cia%22%20%22201%22&match=1

CIA was in contact with Oswald at least until six weeks before the murder. The research was done by Dr. John M. Newman Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2022

Jack Ruby himself called Oswald "'Lee Harvey Oswald of the CIA" https://www.nytimes.com/1977/04/01/archives/ruby-introduced-oswald-as-cia-agent-woman-tells-house-inquiry.html

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article255356661.html

Ricardo Morales witnessed seeing Oswald in a CIA camp.

Are any of these facts relevant here? Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/557771163/?terms=Donald%20Norton%20%22oswald%22%20cia&match=1

Donald P. Norton who was on CIA payroll also claimed Oswald-CIA clink. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/316445245/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22Cia%22%20%22link%22&match=1

CIA tried to obscure Oswald links Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/68484614/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22Cia%22%20%22link%22&match=1

CIA tried to conceal Oswald's activities in Dallas. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you are reading what we are posting. Go back and re-read Location's post where he talks about UNDUE. Clearly there isn't a consensus to expand this section (especially with such a one-sided expansion).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you reading what I am posting? Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Re: Donald P. Norton. Not only did he claim an Oswald-CIA link, he also claimed to have worked for the CIA. HERE is an internal report/memo stating that there was no evidence that he did. - Location (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I read UNDUE, so I am not going to add any names of witnesses here. But are these relevant facts?

1. CIA was in contact with Oswald at least until six weeks before the murder.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/223700580/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22file%22%20%22cia%22%20%22201%22&match=1

2. CIA tried to obscure Oswald links

https://www.newspapers.com/image/316445245/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22Cia%22%20%22link%22&match=1

3.CIA tried to conceal Oswald's activities in Dallas.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/68484614/?terms=%22oswald%22%20%22Cia%22%20%22link%22&match=1 Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't want immediate undo of my edits, so I am asking your permission. Are these facts relevant in "dissenting theories"?

Those three facts.

UNDUE I am not going to add some witness names. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not a matter of adding witnesses names, it's a matter of these FRINGE theories being given so much space/WEIGHT. We link to the CT article which handles it much better than has been proposed here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Even the CT article could use some work on how it handles Newman's claims. We have a summary paragraph of his argument with just a thin veneer of impartiality and no secondary source citations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't even have to be that Oswald worked for the CIA. The possibility of CIA having some kind of foreknowledge of JFK assasssinated is not fringe. Mozartbeethovenbrahms (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm at 3RR reverting [13] whatever this stuff is being added to the article, sourced to local newspapers. Someone please take over for me. EEng 08:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The material in question stated...

While HSCA didn't believe CIA had any part in the murder of JFK assassination, they suspected CIA tried to cover up some embarrassing contacts with Oswald in Dallas. By concocting fake evidence, the CIA tried to give a false impression that Oswald was in Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City although Oswald was in contact with CIA-guided Cubans in Dallas.[279][280][281]

...however, the sources used do not support that statement. The newspaper article cited appears to be an article by Jack Anderson and Les Whitten that discussed Antonio Veciana's claims regarding "Maurice Biship" to HSCA investigators well before the HSCA released their report. That report (see pp. 136-137) eventually stated:

The committee was left with the task of evaluating Veciana's story, both with respect to the existence of Maurice Bishop and the alleged meeting with Oswald, by assessing Veciana's credibility. It found several reasons to believe that Veciana had been less than candid:

First, Veciana waited more than 10 years after the assassination to reveal his story.

Second, Veciana would not supply proof of the $253,000 payment from Bishop, claiming fear of the Internal Revenue Service.

Third, Veciana could not point to a single witness to his meetings with Bishop, much less with Oswald.

Fourth, Veciana did little to help the committee identify Bishop.

In the absence of corroboration or independent substantiation, the committee could not, therefore, credit Veciana's story of having met with Lee Harvey Oswald.

I agree with the revert/removal. -Location (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Evidence that LHO did not shoot JFK

See the FAQ, not a forum for sourceless speculation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Eight CIA people have said that they knowingly (5) or unknowingly helped kill President Kennedy, including E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, Rafael “Chi Chi” Quintero, Carl Jenkins, George de Mohrenschildt, Marita Lorenz, and Wm. Robert “Tosh Plumlee. E. Howard Hunt said that Cord Meyer led the CIA team that organized the Kennedy assassination, which also included David Morales, Bill Harvey, Frank Sturgis, and E. Howard Hunt. Cord Meyer and Ben Bradlee groomed Senator Jack Kennedy, often in the company of CIA counter intelligence chief James Angleton. Meyer and Bradlee first worked together on the CIA’s Radio Free Europe operation in Paris. Their wives were sisters. The Meyers, Bradlees, and Angletons belonged to a larger group of CIA people and journalists called the Georgetown Crowd. E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and several other old Bay of Pigs CIA guys went to jail for the Watergate break-in. Ben Bradlee published the Watergate scandal in Washington Post. Bradlee’s close associate was the CIA chief of news media manipulation Cord Meyer. Ben Bradlee and Cord Meyer visited JFK in the White House. After divorcing Cord Meyer, his ex-wife, Mary Pinchot Meyer, had a two year long affair with President Kennedy, right up until the day he died. Mary said that JFK was killed because “they could not control him anymore”. Mary said that she was afraid that she would be killed soon after JFK because she knew too much. Mary Pinchot Meyer was killed one year after Jack Kennedy. She was shot once in the back and once in the side of the head while walking for exercise near her home in the Georgetown neighborhood of DC. Mary used to take walks with Jackie Kennedy. Her brother-in-law Ben Bradlee identified her body. In a 2004 video, E. Howard Hunt said that Vice President LBJ oversaw the CIA team that organized the Kennedy assassination. LBJ’s top donors, Texas oil moguls Clint Murchison and Haroldson L. Hunt (the richest man in the world), let the CIA train men to kill Fidel Castro with triangulated sniper crossfire on their ranches in Mexico and Texas. During the Vice President George Bush’s Irangate, the illegal arming of the Contras, Rafael “Chi Chi” Quintero and Carl Jenkins told coworker Gene Wheaton (former FBI) that their team of CIA men who were trained to kill Fidel Castro with triangulated sniper crossfire were used to kill President Kennedy. Quintero and Jenkins first worked for George Bush on the CIA’s Bay of Pigs operation. George de Mohrenschildt had several CIA friends. He knew George Bush and Jackie Kennedy since they both were children. George de Mohrenschildt testified before LBJ’s Warren Commission, that was led by the Bush/Rockefeller men Allen Dulles and John McCloy, that he did jobs for the CIA and that CIA agent J. Walton Moore asked him to look after Lee Harvey Oswald. Clint Murchison, Haroldson L. Hunt, and George de Mohrenschildt were all in the Dallas Petroleum Club with George Bush, who managed the CIA’s Bay of Pigs operation. New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison found that Lee Harvey Oswald had worked with CIA agent Clay Shaw on running guns to Miami for the Bay of Pigs operation (for George Bush). Marita Lorenz testified in court deposition testimony in 1985 (Hunt v Liberty Lobby) that she and Frank Sturgis and others of the CIA drove the guns to kill JFK from Miami to Dallas, and that both E. Howard Hunt of the CIA and Jack Ruby (of the Chicago mob) both met with Frank Sturgis at their hotel in Dallas, the night before the Kennedy assassination. Twenty percent of Murchison’s oil business was owned by the mob, including New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello. Jack Ruby of the Chicago mob worked with lieutenants of Carlos Marcello on mob gambling in Dallas. Ruby paid off the police for the mob in Dallas. In 1975, the Chicago mob’s man in Las Vegas, Johnny Rosselli, testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee) that the Chicago mob had worked with the CIA on attempts to kill Fidel Castro. CIA pilot Tosh Plumlee said that he flew Johnny Rosselli and E. Howard Hunt to Dallas for the Kennedy assassination. Prescott Bush funded Richard Nixon’s career in Congress and the Eisenhower/Nixon ticket in 1952. Nelson Rockefeller reorganized the Federal Government during the Eisenhower administration. The Bush/Rockefeller lawyer Allen Dulles became Eisenhower’s CIA Director and his brother, the Bush/Harriman lawyer John Foster Dulles ran the State Department. The Rockefellers and Bushes ran the US foreign policy and the CIA during the Eisenhower administration. Eisenhower introduced Clint Murchison to the Rockefeller man and CEO of Chase National Bank named John McCloy. As the Rockefellers’ Chase bank financed Clint Murchison, Murchison funded LBJ’s political career. LBJ was the Texas Oil Lobby’s man in Congress. Clint Murchison put FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover up for free for a couple of weeks each summer, at his Hotel Del Charro complex in La Jolla, CA, for eighteen years. At Hotel Del Charro, Hoover could mingle freely with CIA-connected Texas oil moguls including Clint Murchison, politicians like Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy, mob bosses including Carlos Marcello of New Orleans, and Sam Giancana of Chicago, and movie stars including John Wayne and Joan Crawford. LBJ’s mistress Madeleine Brown stated that LBJ met with the CIA-connected Clint Murchison, Haroldson L. Hunt, Rockefeller man John McCloy, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, former Vice President Richard Nixon, the Chicago mob’s man in Dallas Jack Ruby, and other Texas oil men at Murchison’s family home in Dallas the night before the Kennedy assassination. On the way to the car, LBJ told Madeleine Brown that the Kennedys would not embarrass him anymore “after tomorrow”. The Rockefellers and Bushes ran the CIA when the CIA killed President Kennedy (according to eight CIA people). President Kennedy was groomed by the CIA before becoming President and advised by the CIA as President. Kennedy supported CIA coup efforts in Cuba and South Vietnam but refused to escalate them into full blown military invasions. Kennedy threatened Rockefeller and Rothschild control over the Federal Reserve System. Kennedy got rid of the 27.5% income tax break for oil corporations, including Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Texas oil mogul oil corporations. Kennedy threatened to destroy his buddies’ CIA. 2601:249:B01:FFE0:A9C9:E3DD:1C0D:D514 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• I just want to say that I, too, helped kill Kennedy. EEng 01:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation in this article

There is a lot of KGB and DGI disinformation in this article, such as Oswald's activities in Russia. Many more examples abound, and can be referenced to books by Ion Pacepa and Richard F Cross.

The high disinformation content of this article should at least be discussed... 2600:1700:D710:53A0:BC:EDDE:6BCE:C1F7 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Canada Jack (talk) 23:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Pacepa and Cross were CIA agents during the Cold War. Claiming (generally) there is "KGB and DGI disinformation in this article" without giving specific examples and then citing the names of two unreliable sources before leaving Wikipedia forever hardly seems good faith to me. Clearly just nonsense conspiracy from a one-time IP editor, probably best to ignore. Yue🌙 04:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Your obvious ignorance and bad faith warrant only silence and pity 2600:1700:D710:53A0:3883:6FF2:9CD1:F32 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ion Pacepa literally wrote the book on disinformation/desinformatsiya and many examples exist in this article. Oswald's "historical diary" was obviously written by the KGB as they did for many of their sleeper agents. Mark Lane was exposed as a KGB agent code named KRAM. Read any books by the authors I mentioned, they are written by true subject matter experts. 2600:1700:D710:53A0:3883:6FF2:9CD1:F32 (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

You said a second ago that you'd respond with silence and pity. Please do us a favor and stick to that. EEng 22:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Any evidence for the claim the diary was "obviously" written by the KGB? Sounds implausible to me. Though... I would agree that Mark Lane played the role of "useful idiot" in promoting lies about the assassination, even if the Soviets weren't involved. Canada Jack (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

War Service

Am I reading the article right that he was born in 1939 and served in WWI? Jokem (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Better read it again. EEng 03:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lee Harvey Oswald arrested at the Texas Theatre, Dallas, Texas, 22 November 1963.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Change to honor the truth

Can we please change this to reflect the recent declassified information we now have, Oswald was a patsy and the Cia murdered jfk. 174.247.209.197 (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, when reliable sources start saying that. EEng 14:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Everything I have seen says nothing of the sort about these disclosures.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Carolyn Arnold

I rewrote the passage that refers to Carolyn Arnold's conflicting statements regarding Oswald's whereabouts and possible presence in the lunchrooms. The weight of the evidence from all accounts is that Oswald was not there when Arnold said he was. Arnold's account should be a footnote, if included at all. The only place where it might be mentioned more prominently is in the conspiracy article. - Location (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Rifle location on 6th floor of TSBD

According to the Warren Commission report, Oswald's rifle was hidden behind some boxes near the stairwell at the northwest corner of the 6th floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository, not "near the window" where the shots were fired (at the southeast corner of 6th floor), as currently stated in this article. 71.171.16.207 (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed -Location (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistencies across Oswald pages

The introductory paragraph of the English edition of the Lee Harvey Oswald page consists of a one-sentence statement of fact:

"Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was a U.S. Marine veteran who assassinated John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, on November 22, 1963."

I strongly recommend that you change this paragraph to reflect international consensus. A random search of Wiki pages on Oswald in different languages results in a vast majority with some qualification, reflecting the fact that Oswald was never tried in court, and that a statement of his guilt as fact is irresponsible. It is also confusing to Wikipedia users in other countries with two official languages, for example Canada, raising possible legal implications or consequences in individual national markets.

The French version, translated from the English using Google Translate, reads as follows:

"Lee Harvey Oswald, born October 18, 1939 in New Orleans and assassinated November 24, 1963 in Dallas, is the main suspect in the assassination of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the murder of police officer J. D. Tippit, in accordance with the conclusions rendered by two government surveys. However, no trial, or even the start of a judicial investigation, could take place since he was shot dead by Jack Ruby less than 48 hours after his arrest."

This is a significant qualification of the information in the English edition, yet users in Canada (including secondary school students) will likely be confused as they search for information. I thus recommend changing the English version in line with the French to reflect genuine global consensus. ChadNagleEsq (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikis in other languages have absolutely no bearing on this particular project. Reliable sources suggest that Oswald was responsible for the killing, and therefore that is what we report here. Tollens (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Enough,, please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
OJ Simpson was tried in court, you puerile dunce. Legal analysis proves nothing. 2600:1700:CD2:1D90:BD84:B648:5267:DC49 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Who's on first? EEng 16:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Do you really believe it adds to the integrity of a discussion to wade in and hurl insults? Do you think you sound less “puerile” than those you’re attacking, who haven’t resorted to pejoratives? No one is talking about “proving” anything. The Warren Commission didn’t “prove” Oswald’s guilt, which is why the “Single Bullet Theory” is only called a “theory,” even in the Warren Report. All that is being requested is some qualification of the statement that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. That had never been proven, no matter what Wiki’s unnamed “scholars and historians” say. Try not to reveal yourself for the superficial sophomore you are. You’ll get further in life. ChadNagleEsq (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rumours

I think we need to agree on a shared understanding of the terms "claim", "rumour" and "statement". Official statements are at risk of being discounted in favour of highly dubious and unsubstantiated rumours from "journalists". There are double standards here: Mainstream critics are more likely to agree with rumours that support the official story than official reports that contradict the official story. They can't have it both ways. LairdCamelot (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A couple of friendly suggestions: as per our MOS [14], be careful about using the word "claim" as it can be a loaded term. Also, watch out for going beyond what a source says and drawing a conclusion, as that is OR [15]. Whether we are talking a (RS) journalist or (RS) academic source, it's best to just report (without modification) what was said.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33 Thank you I appreciate these suggestions. This is reasonable ethos. Part of my criticism of Guss Russo is that he didn't provide the raw data, and his quotations were isolated and brief (out-of-context) with paraphrasing. I'm new to Wikipedia editing but it's great to be contributing.

My ethos is to let the audience join the dots, facilitated by giving them an accurate picture. LairdCamelot (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass

It's revealed that Oswald did not kill JFK 2601:2C4:C680:A8E0:F1CD:4350:BE76:9018 (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's true. I killed JFK. EEng 01:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Why is somebody as stupid as you in charge of a wiki page? It's absurd and inappropriate... 213.126.51.218 (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  They couldn't find anyone stupider, so they settled for me. EEng 05:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's called the "iron law of oligarchy" effect. In short, editors with a conscience (and hence more often than not aligned with the original goals of Wikipedia) tend not to find themselves promoted to administrative roles, whereas vapid, self-serving bureaucrats do. Earl of Arundel (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Earl of Arundel Ironically, JFK's Waldorf Speech was all about this very issue. The hope was that, to use your phrase, the iron law of oligarchy would be unmade.

Unfortunately one does not simply walk into Mordor. LairdCamelot (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no evidence implicates anyone else besides Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK. Please take your conspiratorial nonsense somewhere else. Wikipedia is not the place for you to spew unhinged and baseless allegations. Gdeblois19 03:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Who's in Charge here?

To quote Oliver Stone's script re: the autopsy: who's in charge here?

I see "consensus" has been made a Talk Page issue for Oswald's culpability, yet I can't see anywhere in existence here contrary to what's implied. Well, any thoughts? LairdCamelot (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to change the language here to "alleged" and "accused" despite the consensus here that we can say Oswald in fact killed the president, make your case here before changing the article, especially on something as basic as this. Canada Jack (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canada Jack My case is that 133A is proven to be faked by the impossibility of Oswald's pose - he is falling-over.

Now, the fact that 133A is fake and that somebody framed Oswald doesn't rule-out his presence in the Snipers Nest. However until we know more, we should reserve judgement - a very reasonable position.

Thoughts? LairdCamelot (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you've been misled by some researchers, Laird. 133A is clearly a real photo - if you want to pretend Oswald's face was glued on... well, whoever posed for it would have fallen over by your logic, right? IOW, putting aside whether that is Oswald or not, how would this "impossible pose" have been photographed? Canada Jack (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canada Jack The entire body is superimposed onto the background (Neely St. backyard). It's a composite of at least 2 images. You say that's impossible, but think about it: Oswald's original photo was upright (vertical), but being cropped and pasted over another (this) background. LairdCamelot (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where you are getting this, Laird, but what you are proposing is literally impossible to have been done without detection, especially in 1978. You'd also have to explain away the fact that Marina Oswald consistently, even after saying Lee didn't do it, says she took the photos, and how the photos could possibly have been faked when the shadows are specific to the time of year - March - when they were living at that address, and when Lee's rifle was shipped to him. And how de Mohrenschildt ended up with a signed copy of one of the photos?

But if you have read the Warren Report and the HSCA report, you'd know all this, right? You have read them, have you? Canada Jack (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canada Jack Please see my reply in other thread - sorry for delay. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Orwellian Reverting

I see we have a slight issue with the truth. Can somebody please explain why my edits keep being reverted? This is supposed to be a collaboration. My use of the word Orwellian is preemptive, but I'm confused about the admin here. LairdCamelot (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Despite the conclusions of two of the most exhaustive investigations in American history which concluded that Lee Oswald shot and killed the president, you, Laird, who clearly has a different opinion, seem to think that your opinion negates those conclusions. So instead of vandalizing the page, make the case for why we should say "alleged" etc, and make it on the talk page, gain consensus for your desired changes, then once that consensus is reached, propose new text, etc. Canada Jack (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canada Jack Oswald was framed.

You and I have a difference of opinion about 133A. Let's have the debate - I'm up for that. So explain how Sylvia Weinstein produced a story that totally contradicts the official Warren Hearing (Farrell Dobbs)? Please, I'm curious. Remember, this is decades later. Explain it. LairdCamelot (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

??? Explain what? The fact that Oswald held in his hand publications of the far left that were rivals? This is the man - Oswald - who said he wanted to become "prime minister" of the United States, after all. As for a "difference of opinion" about 133A, that's not my opinion, per se, it's the opinion of the photo panel on the HSCA - what issue do you have with their analysis? Canada Jack (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canada Jack The HSCA's analysis excluded attention to the obviously impossibly nature of Oswald pose. They ignored this. Regarding the pamphlets, my contention is with Sylvia Weinstein and Guss Russo. Oswald allegedly mailed 133A to the SWP (Militant), but if so, why did Farrell Dobbs omit any mention of this in his testimony to the WC. It doesn't add-up. LairdCamelot (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the HSCA analysis? And you never answered my question - how could this "impossible" pose have been photographed in the first place? And if superimposed, then how was it done so without detection? It would have been impossible to impose an entire body over the photo without detection. They "ignored" the "impossible" nature of the pose... because it isn't "impossible." Where are you getting this nonsense? Further, though we don't have the negative for 133A, we do for 133B - they were taken with the same camera - Marina's - and would HAVE to have been taken during a specific time frame in early Spring to match... How could 133B have been taken using that camera but superimposing Oswald on it? This would literally be impossible in the 1960s and 1970s to do without being easily detected.

As for the photo being mailed to the SWP and Dobbs not mentioning it in his testimony... what is the issue here? Maybe he forgot? There are many benign explanations for this - not even sure what this is supposed to mean... Weinstein remembers a photo... Dobbs doesn't or chose not to mention it.... and...? So what! Canada Jack (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canada Jack one thing at a time. I did answer but here's again: you photograph Oswald, you mask him off to isolate him, removing background.

you then paste (with glue or whatever) that shape over empty Neely Street backyard.

I apologize for any confusion but this is the logical way of forging 133A - although some would argue it's too difficult given additional variables such as light/shadows etc. Jack White claimed to find issues here - I just don't see it, but 133A's posture is not possible unless Oswald intended to fall over and dislocate his shoulder etc. Furthermore, if he were falling, why is there no motion blur?

The reason is that he isn't. He's vertical, but the superimposed body is poorly aligned, clearly not by an artist.

An artist would have done a better job. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@LairdCamelot: The "Orwellian reverting" business is over the top, and is close to personal attack. You are being disagreed with. Wikipedia is not a forumfor debate,either in article space or on talkpages. You need ironclad referencing showing a consensus of reliable sources to present concepts or assertions in Wikivoice, which you have not done. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion I will check out Wikivoice - thank you. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That is shorthand for statements in Wikipedia's voice, it's not a separate thing. Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Acroterion oh I see understood. LairdCamelot (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I blame the others for reverting. You are still going with loaded language (and OR) in your writing. (Saying stuff like "libelous rumour" and so on.) You also tried to change the lead to say LHO "allegedly" killed Kennedy.....we've been down that route before and consensus is not on your side there. (You may want to look in the talk archives.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33 I have spoken personally with the Militant and neither they nor the SWP ever possessed 133A. I advised that they take legal action against Guss Russo.

Apologies for any violations of Wikipedia's protocol - my edits were well intentioned but it seems unpopular. I'll happily comply with you guys. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not about unpopularity. Wikipedia has rules about how content is shaped. EEng 22:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Dino Brugioni

This is a thread on one aspect relevant to Oswald's innocence. Dino Brugioni was interviewed by Doug Horne about the Zapruder film and he claimed the CIA (Hawkeyeworks) must have altered it to conform to a newer narrative than what he remembered. I believe him, and it is a pity we don't have access to the original film showing true timeline. LairdCamelot (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Zapruder film hasn't been altered, Laird. And if you are listening to people who claim otherwise, you are being played. They are lying, often to sell books to a gullible public by claiming the government is lying. Which is projection, pure and simple. Canada Jack (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Canada Jack interesting. You could be right although I am open-minded.

Robert Groden didn't believe it's altered.

What is your view on him and his reliance on the Zapruder film? He claimed it supports a frontal shot but it doesn't because the wound seen there is frontal, near his ear.

You're right about many of the authors selling books for profit not for scientific progress. LairdCamelot (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Me personally, I wouldn't use Bob Groden to back my arguments. After what came out about him in the OJ Simpson Civil trial, I wouldn't trust his word for anything. (Not that I did in the first place.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33 fair enough, but how would one explain "Back and to the Left"? LairdCamelot (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we come back down to earth? If there's no proposal for a change to the article based on WP:RSs, then this thread needs to be closed. EEng 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@EEng Yes, sorry. We're off on a tangent because I am curious about details.

Sure thing. LairdCamelot (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

By all means lets stop getting off on tangents and resume going around in circles. EEng 22:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@EEng hahaha LairdCamelot (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@EEng this cracked me up! not heard that before.... well leave them laughing I guess LairdCamelot (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

How to explain "back and to the left"? Well, we know from ballistics that the transfer of momentum from a bullet the size being fired at Kennedy striking him in the skull, given the weight of his head and his body, would amount to about an inch in the direction of travel. We in fact see exactly this in the frame after he's struck before his head explodes. His head abruptly is knocked forward by about an inch. Since he then moves to the left closer to a foot, that can't be associated with a bullet strike. The most likely explanation was a numero-muscular reflex reaction associated with the destruction of the brain stem. Canada Jack (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I looked up numero-muscular and all I got was this: [16]. EEng 17:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I am an engineer and I've done calcs on the momentum transfer of the bullet. And the violent "back and to the left" head movement is obviously not explained by a direct bullet impact from the front. (And this isn't OR btw, Bugliosi talked to a physicist in 'Reclaiming....' and he confirmed this.) People go to the movies and watch people go flying through the air after being shot.....that's not the case. (I also speak as someone who is fairly proficient with firearms as well.) (Hopefully we are not drifting into forum here.) Aside from the "neuro-muscular" explanation, another I've heard (in RS) is the "jet" effect of the head material blowing out. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Spell-check rises again.... Canada Jack (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

133A, funding bias and science

This isn't going to produce any useful suggestions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To the probable dismay of some folk, I'm creating yet another thread this time devoted to Hany Farid's 2015 study that addressed Oswald's pose. I'm not going to try to convince you he and his colleagues made any mistakes because I'm not qualified to. However it is standard protocol to provide funding disclosures, not least because this is a legal obligation for researchers. Wikipedia is supposed to be leading the way in transparency. Can we all agree that funding bias and publication bias are legitimate concerns, and that we as Wikipedians must share these concerns? Furthermore, if we don't know who funded a study, this itself should be declared to provide context. Agreed? LairdCamelot (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Please suggest specific additions or changes you propose be made to the text of the article, including sources. EEng 17:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC) @EEng In answer to your question, I suggest a reference to Embry-Riddle Aeronautics University that sponsored the Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law that published the 2015 study detailing Oswald's pose. LairdCamelot (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Put your proposal in the form Change X to Y, where X and Y are actual article text. Then we'll know what you're really proposing. EEng 16:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Hany Farid's 2015 study showed conclusively that Oswald's position in 133A wasn't unnatural - he'd not topple over. But instead of attempting to refute any of the analysis he and his team did, you instead imply that his funding swayed the analysis. Well, how? Is photogrammetry somehow a deep-state plot? It's yet another example of the conspiracy crowd refusing to address evidence. And this is beside the problem with creating such a fake in the first place, given the analysis to 133A and 133B done in the 1970s for the HSCA. (How could this "impossible" pose be faked in the first place?!?) Like it or not, Laird, the onus is on you to demonstrate something fatally flawed about these investigations, not to make wild accusations that dark forces are manipulating these researchers and wikipedia itself which serve only to avoid addressing the evidence in the first place. Canada Jack (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC) I think we need to stop responding to posts that don't include specific suggested changes to the article. EEng 17:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack Are you honestly inviting me to debunk the study? Be my guest. Please confirm. LairdCamelot (talk) 18:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Do not debunk the study. We could not use one sentence of your original research/editorial opinion in the article. If you think there is a reliable source which debunks the study, please cite it here, so that we can discuss it. Rgr09 (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC) @Rgr09 I'm glad you clarified this. Original research isn't likely to be accepted here. No, there's no reliable source. That's kind of why I tried the funding root, but it didn't land well with other users. LairdCamelot (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC) There's no reliable source — yeah, that should be a bit of a red flag. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 02:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC) @Heavy Water The lack of funding disclosure is the red flag here. I am not qualified to debunk the study. LairdCamelot (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Do you know what the funding was? Do you have any reliable sources for this? Do you have any reason to believe that the funding affected the research? Do you have any reliable sources for this? Unless you can say "yes" to these questions then there is really nothing to discuss here other than the grasping of straws. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC) @Escape Orbit Funding is proven to influence research, through funding bias. All science adheres to standards - including disclosure of conflicts of interest. Hany Farid's Dartmouth group received funding from the US Air Force, which has been heavily linked to Oswald. This financial link is disclosed on his website. Wikipedia MUST declare this. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC) WP:RGW may be of interest. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC) @Heavy Water I agree that skewed editing is occurring. It is occurring on behalf of the US military, and PR firms. Anybody that can look themselves in the mirror after skewing the course of history and assaulting science is a disgrace. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not a PR front for the US military. What happened to integrity? LairdCamelot (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC) See also User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. and WP:VNT, and, once again, WP:RGW, which you haven't commented on yet. You really don't seem to understand Wikipedia doesn't expose grand conspiracies. It is "behind the curve", as RGW says. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC) And WP:1AM. When several people are pointing you to policies explaining clearly why Wikipedia doesn't do what you want it to, it's time to drop the STICK. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC) That's a 'no' on all four questions. You just have a tenuous connection of your own construction. Wikipedia MUST NOT include original synthesis and conspiracy theories. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Agreed. And the premise that somehow someway funding by the Air Force brings in "bias"... what are you talking about? Why would the Air Force have some particular stake in whether a photo of Oswald is faked or not? Oswald was a Marine, he wasn't in the Air Force, he wasn't "heavily linked" to them. To say this is a stretch, grasping at straws, is more than an understatement, it's completely ludicrous. Canada Jack (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC) Exactly, right? Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC) @Escape Orbit Political sponsoring is NOT a conspiracy theory, it is a FACT. LairdCamelot (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC) You have failed to explain how in any way Air Force funding would introduce "bias" into an examination of an individual who was never even part of the Air Force! What "conflict of interest" are you talking about? Canada Jack (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack OSI (Air Force office of special investigations). They investigated Oswald - and to my knowledge, before any other military intelligence agency. LairdCamelot (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC) ...and? So what? Canada Jack (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC) This has as much relevance and credibility to me as citing six degrees of Kevin Bacon and concluding that said actor was the master-mind of all this. Canada Jack (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack Do you even understand how conflict of interest works? Funding must be declared - I can't believe this is even up for debate. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC) I do understand how conflict of interest works, but it's clear you don't. There is no discernible conflict with the Air Force here, despite the investigation they once did. A conflict would be if the Air Force has some role with these photos originally, or if there was someone involved with the photos who was also involved with the Air Force. Nothing of the sort has been claimed here. Canada Jack (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack I think we're on the same page. However I've been instructed not to provide original research (reasonably enough). I must cite existing research. You must be aware that "toppling over" is not as rigourously scrutinized a field as, say, Climate Change. Farid's study is isolated. Therefore nobody could refer to a consensus of 97%. I'm all ears when it comes to genuine consensus, but Farid's 2015 study isn't exactly a consensus. LairdCamelot (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC) The authenticity of the photos 133A and 133B (and 133C) were established by the HSCA, which found no evidence of tampering or manipulation. And they were working with a first-generation print of 133A (and 133C), and the original negative of 133B, which is not the case for future researchers. Therefore any subsequent claims are rendered moot. These issues were addressed and answered in 1978. Canada Jack (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack So you're literally saying that any scientific research after 1978 is invalid? The HSCA do not hold the mantle to truth. Let's think about that logic shall we? LairdCamelot (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC) There's been no new scientific examination of the original 133B negative and the two first-generation prints of 133A and 133C done since 1978, that's what I'm saying. So new conclusions on manipulation are being made without re-examining the evidence. Canada Jack (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack I see. This then renders Hany Farid's study inferior to the HSCA's then? I'm going to settle for a compromise here, which is that we discount all studies subsequent to HSCA's analysis - and hence remove the Farid mention. LairdCamelot (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC) I don't see the need to do so. There were no "new conclusions on manipulation... being made" by Farid - his analysis agreed with the HSCA analysis - and his was a widely cited study sourced by reliable sources. If he claimed to have made some startling new discovery, without actually examining the original evidence, then you might have a case to make for removal. Canada Jack (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack No, you just said that he didn't reexamine the evidence. So if he didn't, why was he cited, and how reliable can these sources be if they cited such a study. The study, by your logic, is trumped by a previous study, but the whole point about "new" research is that it builds on previous research - which in this case it couldn't, except with severely compromised material. LairdCamelot (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) No, Laird, I said in terms of new claims: "new conclusions on manipulation are being made without re-examining the evidence." Farid made no new conclusions, and he was cited by reliable sources. Which is why he is included and new claims about "toppling over" are not. Canada Jack (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack You're saying the HSCA addressed the 'toppling-over' issue? I can't find anything in the HSCA report addressing the physics (balance) of Oswald in 133A. LairdCamelot (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Is the "toppling-over" issue on the page here? Nope. So why is what the HSCA said or didn't say on this issue relevant? Most of Farid's study is on the issues addressed by the HSCA - like the shadows, length of the rifle, etc. And all we say from Farid is the photo was "almost certainly was not altered." (The focus was on 133A, not B or C.) What we used from Farid makes no reference to that issue, so your complaint is misplaced. Canada Jack (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC) More to the point, the study that the page refers to is NOT the study Farid did on the toppling-over issue, which was his 2015 study. So it seems you are creating an issue here... out of nothing but a claim that is not even addressed anywhere. Canada Jack (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack Why omit the 2015 study from Wikipedia's page if there's nothing to hide? If the study is correct, then it should be included. If it's mistaken or invalid, then we should state this. You're saying we can't trust the 2015 one, but a study by the same author (Farid) from 2009 is perfectly legit? LairdCamelot (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC) ??? Because this page is about Lee Harvey Oswald, not about issues with a particular photograph of him. There was controversy over the photograph, Jack White is referenced, then a further study corroborated what the HSCA concluded. That's sufficient, for a page about the life of Oswald. Canada Jack (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC) @Canada Jack Then we need a separate page for 133A. Otherwise we're lending credit to an ethos of vagueness and compromise. LairdCamelot (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC) I'd say a better idea would be to have a separate page to discuss the HSCA photo analysis of the three backyard photos and some of the other photos. The analysis on the backyard ones were pretty definitive, the others less so, though the flesh tone analysis eliminated many conspiracists' pet theories. Canada Jack (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Last chance Unless Laird proposes specific, literal text to be added to, changed in, or deleted from the article, I'm going to hat this thread in the next three days. This is a complete waste of time. EEng 00:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC) BEGINNING OF TEXT "Marina Oswald by was asked James Herbert Martin at to why her husband would wish to send 133A to the Militant/SWP: Mr. MARTIN. I asked her at one time why he wanted a photograph taken of that type, and she said she didn't know. He just wanted pictures taken that way. This supports Farrell Dobbs' testimony in which he 'forgot' to mention 133A (under-oath) and discredits rumours of an SWP collusion/conspiracy such as the one peddled by Guss Russo." END OF TEXT I also would like to point out that Wikipedia has policy on libel and libellous assertions. I have personally communicated with the SWP who denied these libellous rumours, and advised they take legal action against Guss Russo who appears to have, for his own financial gains, peddled such theories. There is no evidence whatsoever that the SWP had the photo. No raw-data was provided by Guss Russo. You do of course trust the Warren Report, don't you? LairdCamelot (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC) How is the reader to make any sense of this, given that "Martin" and "Russo" aren't mentioned anywhere else? Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. And you can't possibly imagine the article is going to talk about theories "peddled" by people. Finally, if you've been advising people to take legal action against other people, you need to stay strictly away from this article. EEng 00:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC) P.S. This thread is headed "133A, funding bias and science"; what in the world does any of what you posted have to do with that? https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Dobbs_aff.pdf This debunks the myth that 133A, B OR C were EVER mailed to SWP/Militant. LairdCamelot (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC) An affidavit is a primary source. What in the world does this have to do with the text you proposed (above) adding to the article? EEng 16:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC) The only "evidence" is Marina telling Leon Gopadze 133A would be sent to Militant/SWP. In the report, this is within two sentences of her apologising for lying. She lied, u-turned, and somehow that trumps the affidavit of Dobbs? Is there any proof Dobbs lied? Was Dobbs a liar? If so, prove it. And if so, did he lie as many times as Marina lied? So let's all agree (consensus) that Marina Oswald lied many times and can't be trusted officially (maybe in private, but not here in an academic, fact-checking zone). That leaves Guss Russo. Oh, and by the way, James Herbert Martin by your logic must be a liar too, right? And his Warren Testimony must be a fiction too? Nope. Guss Russo's book isn't even properly indexed! I can't believe this garbage is allowed on Wikipedia. Please, take it down. Consensus here? Consensus to remove ALL content by Guss Russo? 90.243.186.4 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC) No idea what you're even talking about. EEng 22:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the Warren Report reliable?

Is the Warren Report reliable? Yes, no, or only when convenient? LairdCamelot (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As a government report, it probably could be considered RS....but it is PRIMARY. RS coverage of it is best (via secondary sources)....but directly quoting from it is ok as long as we aren't talking doing OR. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Rja13ww33 thank you for the feedback.

I will reflect on this LairdCamelot (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Guss Russo's Unreliable Source

Anybody who wishes to defend Russo's rumour on 133A that conflicts with Warren Hearings Volume XI page 209 please state your case. Otherwise I see no reason for its contents to remain on Wikipedia, especially given it excludes reference to Jack Ruby's lawyer William Kunstler whom Russo asserts was tasked with concealing documents. Russo's collusion-allegation suggests that the SWP knowingly misled the Warren Commission. LairdCamelot (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about your edit which I reverted here [17], well, see my edit summary. EEng 22:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@EEng I did, and your reasoning was that it's been there for years.

So you're saying that because a falsehood is entrenched, it's valid?

Seems rather post-truth. LairdCamelot (talk) 10:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@EEng Furthermore, you threatened to have me blocked because a link is broken.

This is intimidation, and abuse of power.

I ALREADY provided you with the link.

If you want me to fix the link, I will fix it, but don't threaten to have me blocked.

This is shameful behaviour and I'm going to report it. LairdCamelot (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

For the benefit of those playing along at home, here's the answer you got: WT:Administrators'_noticeboard#Inquiry_by_LairdCamelot. Now re your comments above:

• My reasoning was not that the Russo source has been there for years. My reasoning is that if you think it's not an WP:RS, you'll need to convince your fellow editors of that.
• I further said that, in the meantime, since it has been there for quite a long time with (apparently) only you objecting, it's going to stay until your case is successfully maide.

A big part of your problem is that you throw around names and references -- Kunstler this! Russo that! SWP! 133A! Martin! Hany Farid! Someone named Dobbs! -- like we're all supposed to connect these random dots you keep tossing out. I for one have no idea what you're even talking about, beyond that 133A is the infamous backyard photo, and Oswald sent it somewhere, or didn't. EEng 22:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to repeat something I said before. Twice on this page you've said you've been in touch with SWP and advised them to initiate some kind of legal action. This action would apparently be against a third party -- not WP or its editors -- so I haven't invoked WP:NLT, but really, based on that you shouldn't be involved in this article at all. You're obviously too invested in the subject. EEng 08:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "sent it somewhere, or didn't" - this is a key issue and highly relevant in my opinion.

133A is central to the case, for it condemned Oswald in the media/public's mind. I'm not joining random dots - see Dobbs' affidavit.

But I'm willing to go slow. I'll slow down - tangents occured yes, but 133A never reached SWP/Militant unless you have evidence I on't know about.

So, rethink 133A chain-of-custody if you please, because it's important in my opinion. Just my opinion. LairdCamelot (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@EEng Every editor is invested in what they edit otherwise they wouldn't be motivated to edit. I'm open about the SWP correspondence, but if we applied a control variable, I think you'd find most editors here have investments - undisclosed. LairdCamelot (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that very, very few editors are invested in the subject to the point that they've contacted a party mentioned in the article to suggest that they sue one of the sources. EEng 18:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@EEng I'm not allowed to comment given my being given a final warning. LairdCamelot (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You can certainly comment. What you can't do is (a) edit war, (b) impugn hidden, dark motives to your fellow editors. And you CERTAINLY can't call me "highly conservative". Or actually, you can do that, but of course you'll make yourself seem completely ridiculous if you do so. EEng 20:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@EEng Yeah I apologize for that.

I went way too far. LairdCamelot (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That's enough with the aspersions. I've given a final warning for a bunch of things on LC's talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Final warning noted.

Now:

1) For 133A to have been mailed, Russo's statement must be true

2) Russo's statement is contested by the Warren Report

Just focus on Dobbs' affidavit.

It's very short. Then take a break by all means.

Then return in your own time.

The truth is you can't trust Russo. LairdCamelot (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Alleged

The article should say “alleged” assassin Garyobennett (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Garyobennett. Please see the FAQ. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2023

Lee Harvey Oswald died at 34, not 24. 80.5.39.114 (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Oswald was born on October 18, 1939 and died on November 24, 1963. Do the math. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

But DID he die in 1963? WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! EEng 00:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

EEng, I saw it on TV, so it must be true. Cullen328 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

But did he deserve to die? (Ask Samuel L. Jackson.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that last one's like the roof joke: it's over my head. Care to explain? EEng 06:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a line from that movie 'A Time to Kill'. (Mr. Jackson's best known line from the film....a response to that question.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

In the "Return to Dallas" section it is mentioned that Ruth Paine's neighbor's brother was Wesley Frazier. This neighbor's name was Linnie Randle, so I suggest that "Ruth Paine said that her neighbor told her on October 14 about a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository, where her neighbor's brother, Wesley Frazier, worked" be changed to "Ruth Paine said that her neighbor, Linnie Randle, told her on October 14 about a job opening at the Texas School Book Depository where Randle's brother, Wesley Frazier, worked" Enemkaythegoat (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 17:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Even with a source, we wouldn't make the change. We don't normally name nonnotable people unless there's some reason to do so. (Frazier, by contrast, appears repeatedly in the narrative and it would be awkward not to name him.) EEng 17:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Oswald's Military Service

The info box at the top-right of the article contains incorrect information. LHO was released from active duty on 11 September 1959, with a discharge characterized as Honorable. However, he was transferred to Class III of the Marine Corps Reserve to serve out the remainder of his statutory 6-year Military Service Obligation. While a member of Class III of the Marine Corps Reserve, he defected to the USSR. After the US State Department informed the Marine Corps of this violation of Marine Corps Regulations (he failed to inform the Marine Corps of his whereabouts for mobilization purposes, a violation of a lawful general order), he was subjected to an administrative discharge board, which determined that he was unfit to remain in the Marine Corps Reserve and recommended a final discharge into civilian status, with a characterization of "Undesirable." This was the lowest form of discharge available administratively, i.e., without a court-martial conviction. LHO's Undesirable discharge was approved and executed effective 13 September 1960. LHO later contested that discharge, but the Secretary of the Navy affirmed the original characterization, and so at the time of his death he remained a discharged former Marine with an Undesirable discharge. IN addition, the box shows his grade as Private, but his service records (found as citation #58 under references) shows his final USMC grade was "PFC" or private first class. 174.65.152.99 (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

Lee Harvy Oswald did, in fact, fire three shots. However, it was mistaken by most of the witnesses that there were either 2-4 shots fired. Pictures of the crime scene revealed the true number was three. Add these facts there, right under "As Kennedy's motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza at approximately 12:30 p.m. on November 22, Oswald fired three rifle shots from the southeast-corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository,[164] killing the President and seriously wounding Texas Governor John Connally. One shot apparently missed the presidential limousine entirely, another struck both Kennedy and Connally, and a third bullet struck Kennedy in the head,[165] killing him. Bystander James Tague received a minor facial injury from a small piece of curbstone that had fragmented after it was struck by one of the bullets". XerxesFuture (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The article already says he fired three shots. RudolfRed (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

The price of the rifle was $19.95, not $29.95. Click the source and read it for yourself if you don’t believe me. It’s just flat wrong on the page. It is correct on the page about the rifle itself, however. 2601:602:8080:7590:80A:359C:9456:D5A9 (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like someone confused the cost of the rifle vs. the handgun. Fixed. And thank you! EEng 21:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)