Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Sliding down the Banister

How come we have several paragraphs - in the "New Orleans" section - devoted to some guy named Banister? LHO's involvement with Banister seems to have been minimal and not considered significant by any investigation. Looks like undue weight to me. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit. Other editors are welcome to take a crack at it. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It all seems very marginal and irrelevant. Nothing ever came of this. --Pete (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A discussion of Guy Banister is probably relevant in other articles to the extent reliable secondary sources discuss them in conjunction with Jim Garrison's investigation and other conspiracy theories. - Location (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. But none of the material relating to Banister has anything to do with LHO's actual notability. Was he notable for pretending to be a popular pro-Castro movement? Or for other activities? If we accept the latter, as any reasonable person would, Banister becomes irrelevant. Just another loose end chased down to make sure it led nowhere. Cherry-picking out of primary sources such as the WC etc. is only to further supposition and synthesis. This is fine when discussing Garrison and conspiracy theories, but irrelevant here. LHO is notable for assassinating JFK and Banister has nothing to do with that. --Pete (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I forgot to add "...but not here" to my comment above. - Location (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I guess I'm directing my comments at those who want to add pro-conspiracy material here. --Pete (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The WC and the House Select Committee on Assassinations examined Oswald relationship to these people during his time in New Orleans, but you consider this irrelevant. I guess you know better ... lol. Time to get a clue Skyring. --BrandonTR (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal abuse won't help, Brandon. Let's stick to Wikipolicy. Yes, the WC and HSCA looked into these things and found nothing relevant to JFK. See my comments about notability above. This is relevant to Garrison and conspiracy theories, but by inserting this wad of trivia in here, you are engaging in synthesis and cherry-picking primary sources. --Pete (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the page with mass deletions, Pete. Oswald's time in New Orleans, and his relationships with various people during his time there, are part of the biography. Regarding Oswald's activities in New Orleans in 1963, you may be drawing inferences about Garrison conspiracy theories, but the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations certainly did not. --BrandonTR (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Again. Personal abuse is not helpful. You are welcome to your opinion, but if you would address the points raised in discussion instead, that would be productive. --Pete (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me that I am welcome to my opinion. I was beginning to think that you are the supreme authority. As for the points raised that you have chosen not to address, see above. --BrandonTR (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the Warren Commission, of course, did not draw any inferences about Garrison's conspiracy theories since the Warren Commission predated Garrison's investigation. Secondly, the WC and the HSCA reports note the names of hundreds of people who had some connection to Oswald. In the context of looking at a conspiracy, specifically the anti-Castro angle, the HSCA determined that Oswald may been associated or acquainted with Ferrie and Banister. "The committee concluded, therefore, that Oswald's most significant apparent anti-Castro association, that with David Ferrie, might in fact not have been related to the Cuban issue." This tenuous relationship is something that could be noted on the conspiracy page and sure enough it is. - Location (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Restored the Banister paragraphs. They have been in the article a long time. You want to delete long-standing text, get consensus. Oswald's possible relationship to Banister is one of the most hotly debated subjects relevant to his biography, exclusive of the possible meaning of that relationship. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The relationship is hotly debated in the context of conspiracy theories and this is not the conspiracy theory page. As noted above, the HSCA's main report briefly discusses the extent of the Ferrie/Banister relationships; however, the content in the article pieces together cherry-picked information from the sub-reports. I am happy to open an Rfc on this. - Location (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The debate as to whether Oswald might have been an agent provocateur working with Banister and therefore against rather than in favor or the communist cause is exclusive of JFK assassination conspiracy theories. It is more relevant to Oswald's bio than the conspiracy article. If you think Rfc is appropriate, please proceed. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

But Oswald is not notable for being a communist sympathiser, is he? Fifty years on, he doesn't get an article in an encyclopaedia because of his pro (or possibly anti) communist feelings, does he? He is notable solely for assassinating JFK, and this Banister stuff has nothing to do with that. As you yourself put it, it is "Oswald's possible relationship to Banister". That's nothing but speculation. Speculation doesn't have any place in a biographical article, does it? --Pete (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The idea that Oswald was an anti-communist working with Banister is a WP:FRINGE-theory. The section we are talking about cherry-picks the material that the HSCA used in its investigation, but flatly ignores what the HSCA concluded in its report, i.e. that they "remained convinced that since Oswald consistently demonstrated a left-wing Marxist ideology, he would not have supported the anti-Castro movement" and "that Oswald's most significant apparent anti-Castro association, that with David Ferrie, might in fact not have been related to the Cuban issue." The HSCA only stated that there was a possibility that Oswald was acquainted with Banister and Ferrie, so please propose something in line with that. - Location (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the article does not cherry-pick the information. It even mentions an "Oswald as genuine communist" theory proposed by Guy Banister's brother, as follows:

While the committee was unable to interview Guy Banister (who died in 1964), the committee did interview his brother Ross Banister. Ross theorized that Oswald had used the 544 Camp Street address on his literature to embarrass Guy."[132]

(By the way, I was the one who originally added Guy Banister's brother's theory to the article.) --BrandonTR (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Citing the various statements that the HSCA collected while ignoring their conclusions is a form of cherry-picking. - Location (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, throw in the HSCA conclusions if you want. No one is stopping you. At this point, it's obvious that you have not researched the case very well. --BrandonTR (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's obvious that you're not getting the take home message that the HSCA presented, i.e. there was a possibility that Oswald was acquainted with Banister and Ferrie but there was no evidence it was of any significance. - Location (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

So add it to the article, and quit with the accusations and the whining. --BrandonTR (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here it is: "The HSCA determined that Oswald may have been acquainted with David Ferrie and Guy Banister, but found no evidence that the possible associations were of any significance." Do you really think the article should make mention of something that is not significant? Are you for real? Oh, yeah... I forgot I was talking to you. - Location (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where you've added this sentence to the article. --BrandonTR (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, there's no argument at all. Just theory and supposition and when investigated, nothing at all. Nothing. Nothing notable, nothing relevant. It doesn't belong in this article. --Pete (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"He is notable solely for assassinating JFK, and this Banister stuff has nothing to do with that." So it's your intention to delete entirely the sections on Oswald's service in the Marine Corps, his defection to the USSR, and a lot of the rest of the article? Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. He learnt his weapon skills in the USMC, and his defection and return say a lot about his character and motivation. We have excellent secondary sources for these. The Banister material, not so much. What do you think is important about it? Make a case, please. --Pete (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"The idea that Oswald was an anti-communist working with Banister is a WP:FRINGE-theory." Disagree. Actually, it's a pretty common conclusion among those researchers who believe JFK was or may have been killed as a result of conspiracy. Or is this one of those deals where I'm supposed to knuckle under to the idea that anything at odds with the official conclusions is "FRINGE"? No deal.

And personally, I think it makes more sense than the other explanations I've heard. What do we know? Banister was known to recruit agent provocateurs. People have gone on record saying Banister hired Oswald.[1] Banister worked with Ferrie. People have gone on record saying Ferrie and Oswald were working together. 544 Camp Street was next to the entrance to Banister's office. To me, it's the alternate theories on the subject that sound more like FRINGE: The 544 Camp Street leaflets were solely to annoy Carlos Bringuier, and the fact that Oswald was haunting the same neighborhood as Ferrie was a coincidence, despite the fact that Ferrie sought out Oswald's acquaintances to over the false report that Oswald has been arrested carrying Ferrie's library card. Oh, and all the witnesses are lying about seeing them together. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't share your personal opinion, but that's beside the point. It's what reliable secondary sources say, and frankly, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel on Banister and Ferrie, because all you have are synthesis and supposition and zero evidence that it ever amounted to anything. --Pete (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Using primary sources

To answer BTR here, Wikipedia needs reliable sources, and while primary sources - such as the WC report - are useful in sourcing details and quoting from conclusions, summaries etc. the nature of such a comprehensive document makes cherry-picking from the general body a problematic exercise, particularly when dealing with raw witness statements which may be of dubious reliability. Better to find reliable secondary sources which highlight the statements in a neutral fashion. --Pete (talk) 06:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia's standards carefully, you will will note that Wikipedia calls for both primary and secondary sources. Also, in your objection, you present no evidence that any of the sources cited are unreliable, or that any so-called "cherry-picking" has taken place. --BrandonTR (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My opinion, Brandon. You are dumping factoids into the article to attempt to skew the article in a certain direction. Is it notable that LHO met with the FBI? There's no evidence that it is. If we're talking evidence. Just cherry picking bits and pieces to make a story where none exists. --Pete (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

BrandonTR is wrong. We have a very strong preference for reliable, independent, secondary sources, and allow use of primary and tertiary sources in very limited ways. So it seems that BrandonTR is cherrypicking policies and guidelines like he is cherrypicking primary sources. No thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You still have not made the case that the secondary source is unreliable, because you have no case. --BrandonTR (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about Summers here? Let me quote from Summers: Down the years, speculation as to the role of U.S. intelligence has been the common denominator of the persistent doubts about the true role of Lee Oswald. Oswald trailed behind himself, from Japan in 1958 to New Orleans in 1963, the shadow of an undefined connection with the secret world. How one interprets it all ranges from the reasonable man’s skepticism over the apparent lack of intelligence interest in Oswald on his return from Russia, to Orest Pena’s shrill accusations against the FBI in New Orleans. It is possible that FBI and CIA denials of their agencies’ involvement with Oswald were truthful."

So we're talking speculation here. We don't know what Quigley and Oswald talked about. They may have talked about Oswald's collection of Russian stamps, they may have fellated each other, they may have talked about the plot to assassinate Kennedy. There is ZERO evidence for any of those things. ZERO. Quigley, the FBI, the CIA, everybody who had any contact with Oswald denied any plot. As even Summers admits above.

So, tell me exactly where Wikipedia condones speculation in its articles, please. --Pete (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Pete, I agree. As far as the Warren Commission is concerned — and that is the primary source that is being used — the only notable aspect of the meeting is that Oswald told the agent a number of falsehoods about the New Orleans "branch" of the FPCC and this further demonstrated that Oswald was a liar. Using the agent's Warren Commission testimony but ignoring how that testimony was applicable to their report is cherry-picking. I have updated the article accordingly. - Location (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong again. If the Warren Commission decided that what truth or lies Oswald may have told an FBI agent was relevant to their report, that was their call. --BrandonTR (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was their call. It's not your call to cherry-pick the agent's testimony and insert "among other things" into the article to downplay what the WC found significant about the interaction. - Location (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that you are lying again, since you will not specify what part of the agent's testimony I supposedly cherry-picked. --BrandonTR (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The parts you cherry-picked are obviously the parts you chose to add to the article. It is up to reliable secondary sources to decide which parts of a massive primary source like the Warren Commission report are worthy of discussion, not any individual Wikipedia editor. Over using primary sources and then speculative sources such as Summers leads to nothing but problems, and certainly won't gain consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, you have nothing useful to add to the discussion, since you can't identify anything that I cherry-picked. By the way, where's the secondary source here? Look close; there isn't one. So be brave and go find us a secondary source from someone reliable. --BrandonTR (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply stop your edit warring to add material against consensus, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I already tried that. Unfortunately, Location chooses to act like a baby by not editing out what he specifically objects to, instead choosing to delete everything. Very childish. --BrandonTR (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The Warren Commission seems to have devoted four sentences to this oh-so important interaction:

"At Oswald's request, an FBI agent also interviewed him. Oswald maintained that he was a member of the New Orleans branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee which, he claimed, had 35 members. He stated also that he had been in touch with the president of that organization, A. J. Hidell. Oswald was in fact the only member of the 'New Orleans branch,' which had never been chartered by the National Fair Play for Cuba Committee."[2]

All of this is now included in the article and you are still complaining. Citing the agent's testimony and inserting "among other things" is a form of cherry-picking to support original analysis that whatever else was discussed was important. No one else seems to think that whatever else was discussed in that meeting, or even the agent's name, is important here. Nevermind that you haven't bothered to offer any explanation of why this material is important, what's obvious is that you continue to resort to battleground behavior when you don't get what you want. Childish, indeed. - Location (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, inserting the text "among other things" is closer to the truth, since the agent told the WC several things not mentioned here. But I'm not here to nitpick. I only want the text to reflect the fact that Oswald asked to see an FBI agent and that the request was granted. Regarding your question why this is important, I can only answer by saying that the WC obviously deemed it important enough to subpoena the FBI agent to testify. --BrandonTR (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Because they were looking for answers. They found none here except that LHO was an attention-seeking liar. That's hardly notable. --Pete (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly against you on this matter. Do not edit war and do not edit against consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring Cullen. We're all getting tired of it. --BrandonTR (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Very amusing, BrandonTR. You have 614 edits to this article, including dozens of reversions in recent weeks. I have a total of seven edits to the article, including a single edit in the last year which removed an obvious redundancy. And you accuse me of edit warring? How do you think that claim will be received at WP:AN3? Please let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Detailing the Warren Commission's case against Oswald

While several editors here complain that the evidence for conspiracy is lacking or downplayed, as per the current on-going discussion, for me the more serious issue is the near-complete lack of detailing of the actual evidence which the Warren Commission used to conclude Oswald shot the president. Instead, we have a long quote about "motive" (which is not particularly relevant if he have evidence indicating he actually shot the president, which we do), and a long note on the HSCA dictabelt evidence which, after all, is not about Oswald per se as the HSCA also concluded Oswald alone shot and killed the president. (It's relevant to the issue of conspiracy, not to whether Oswald was cuplable.)

I propose that we greatly expand the Warren Commission section and detail some of this evidence.

It could be something along the lines of...

"The WC issued its report on Sept xx 1964, concluding Oswald alone shot the president and did so with no accomplices....

"It first concluded, based on forensic, autopsy and witness evidence, that there was a single gunman, and that gunman fired from the sixth floor...

"It concluded that that gunman was Oswald based on the following... (detailing the major points from Chapter 4 of the Report)

"It concluded he owned and possessed the murder weapon as per the handwriting evidence for the order, the backyard photos, the fingerprint on the weapon etc

"It concluded he carried the rifle into the building... that he was in the sniper's nest... etc""

This should be a rather straighforward section to write, though the challenge would be to keep the points brief.

We could further expand on the HSCA corroborating the role of the TSBD assassin and that that person was Oswald, while addressing some points critics had made (the SBT, the backyard photos, the Lovelady photo etc)

Comments? Canada Jack (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should make an evidence section solely about the Warren Commission. Other investigations, historians, etc. concur with the basic historical facts and evidence outlined in the WC's report and so those facts should not appear to be attributed to the WC. It is a frequent tactic of conspiracists to attribute matters of historical fact they wish to dispute to the WC and attempt to discredit those facts by discrediting the WC. through pointing to some of the unrelated flaws in its report, methodology, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see less use of the WC and other primary sources and more reliance on the very many excellent reliable secondary sources. Again, use it for conclusions and possibly details such as exact quotes, but secondary sources should be our aim, as it is Wikipedia's. --Pete (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We surely need somewhere to detail what evidence points to his guilt, whether it be described as being what the WC concluded, or the HSCA or whomever. Since we already frequently say "the WC concluded..." on the page, not sure how describing WHY they concluded as much would taint those conclusions, the reverse I'd say if all we have here is the discredited to some word of the Warren Commission. IOW, it's harder to take issue with the WC if one describes the actual reasons for its conclusion instead of what we have now which is usually "they ignored all this evidence..." which has the perverse effect of, yes, ignoring the evidence which was actually determinative. Canada Jack (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Laying out the evidence is excellent. This is probably the best article to do that, because it is directly pertinent to LHO. It is where the conspiracy people fall down because they have no hard evidence. Hard to say the rifle was planted when we see pictures of LHO with the rifle, the receipts in his fake name and so on. My concern is with sourcing, and we should be using reliable secondary sources, rather than this endless forensic debate over the WC and so on. This is basic wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is that former DA of Italian descent who lays out the case against Oswald... and in so doing cites the conclusions of both the WC and the HSCA. Canada Jack (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with making the Warren Commission the final arbiter of everything is that the Warren Commission's work was completed only a year after the assassination, in 1964. In the intervening years, much information has emerged that the Warren Commission was not privy to, including the CIA/Mafia plots against Castro, which the CIA concealed from the Commission. Indeed in 2003, Robert Blakey, staff director and chief counsel for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations, stated: "I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald." Hence, to make the argument that the Warren Commission got everything right about the JFK assassination is absurd. Indeed, we now know that there was dissent among the Warren Commission members themselves on several issues, including the single bullet theory. - BrandonTR (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No one ever pretended that the Warren Commission got everything right, Brandon. So let's dispense with that strawman argument. But you are talking about possible conspiracies, I am talking about the evidence linking Oswald to the crime, separate issues even if there was a conspiracy. (Indeed, the evidence the WC and the HSCA used to conclude Oswald killed the president was similar, despite their different conclusions on the issue of "conspiracy.") For example, the CIA. I'm talking about the evidence which links Oswald to the assassination which is nearly completely lacking on this page. Claims of CIA involvement etc has its airing on other pages. But how is Oswald linked to the crime and why isn't it stated here? That is the issue. Canada Jack (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the section needs to be expanded. I agree that Chapter 4 is the place to start. The Warren Commission Report is a reliable source for what the Warren Commission concluded, but the major points of their findings in this chapter can be found in news sources and other secondary sources anyway. The same could be done with the HSCA, etc. - Location (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Do you support or oppose keeping all current material in the article, and allowing the editing process to take its its normal course without mass deletions of current material?

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.

---

Do you support or oppose keeping all current material in the article, and allowing the editing process to take its its normal course without mass deletions of current material? - BrandonTR (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The normal, organic process of editing is preferable to the "book burning" strategy of some editors who have an agenda of mass deleting material they obect to. - BrandonTR (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Material that violates Wikipedia policies should always be removed. This is part of the normal course of the editing process. Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Commenting in general not to a specific case. Major changes to an article that are controversial should be discussed. A cycle may look like: Bold mass deleted -> Bold revert -> Discuss. If an editor makes a mass delete you disagree with then it can be discussed. Of course, the aim should be to comply with Wikipedia policy.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Let's stick to wikipolicy, people. It works. We can't freeze-dry an article and say it must never be changed, any more than we can allow open slather and let any nut put whatever they like in. We edit the article, we talk about it, we make decisions as a group. And often that results in slabs of poorly-sourced or irelevant or fringey material being removed. As per wikipolicy. --Pete (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose When new material added to an article has been contested and removed, it is necessary to gain consensus in favor of including that material. There is no consensus to include what BrandonTR wants. I oppose the RfC and oppose the additions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• SNOW Oppose This is clearly an untenable approach (for any article, let alone a high-profile entry covering a controversial topic) and blanket enforcement of a particular version of an entire article is not remotely the purpose to which RfCs are meant to be applied. If there are specific changes to content which the RfC author opposes or supports, then they should provide the relevant policy arguments for their position on those particular changes -- but it is clearly against policy, community consensus, normal editorial process and frankly common sense to ask that all content be kept as it is without discussion of specific merit of specific statements. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• SNOW oppose - summoned by bot. Removing unsubstantiated challenged material until consensus is attained to include it IS the "normal course" of editing. Please review every basic policy. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Gamaliel, we already have policies in place to address this. Without them, this article will be overridden with large amounts of non-RS crap claiming that everything Oswald's friends and family told the WC and others, is part of some extra-complicated CIA legend. That's the kind of thing that got Oswald exhumed in 1981. Well, it was Oswald after all. The crazies then went back to their drawing boards, and now we have a different set of conspiracies.

  I will suggest that in order to placate those who have no place to summarize the crazy legend theories in WP (the "summation of all human knowledge that doesn't have a chance of making money on Wikia"), then I suppose we could construct an article analogous to our John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and dump all the Lee Harvey Oswald biography conspiracy theories that relate directly to the man's life, there. SBHarris 03:16, 13 June 2015 (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.

Opening paragraph rewritten back to orginal writing

"Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy": Should be changed back to "Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to five U.S. government investigations,[n 1] the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963."

Because it best to acknowledge that that is the official version of events while at the same time the article points out the debate surrounding the events of that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.252.228 (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pudist: I don't have any strong opinion on which version we go with, but it should be discussed here given the number of reverts. - Location (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Given this earlier rant (if not WP:COPYVIO) by Pudist, I think we can assume that Pudist's actions were create artificial balance for conspiracy theories, if not push for those ideas in contradiction to WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Including the caveat, even as a start to a separate sentence, in the lede gives too much prominence to the idea it may be false. The sentence should not be included, per WP:FRINGE & WP:UNDUE. I would favour, if the caveat must be included, demoting it to a tail rather than head caveat.

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, on November 22, 1963. Oswald was determined to have shot and killed Kennedy as he traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in the city of Dallas, Texas by five U.S. government investigations,[n 1].

But written better than that. SPACKlick (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The "according to..." version has been long-standing in one form or another. I believe Gamaliel — who is definitely not a CT — was the editor who introduced this material into the lede in 2006 (diff) and the editor who gave it the lede its current shape (diff). It appears as though this has been discussed various times over the years. The benefit of "according to..." is that the statement is true to virtually everyone who reads it. Without attribution there will be a lot more disruption of the lede as those who do not agree with it are more likely to insert "alleged" in it. - Location (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer the "five government investigations" version. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure "according to" may have been my idea. It was a way to defend the article against constant arguments attempting to insert the word "alleged". Rules were a lot looser back then, and we had far fewer defenses against tendentious and brigading editors. Today, I'm not sure that should be the only reason to keep this language. A strong consensus would be enough now, perhaps. Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage?

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.

---

Do you support or oppose the inclusion of the following passage? - Location (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The passage exploits cherry-picked primary source material to give undue weight to the possibility that Oswald may have known David Ferrie and Guy Bannister, presumably to bolster the conspiracy theory that Oswald held anti-Castro views and was in cahoots with other anti-Castro individuals. This material belongs in the main conspiracy article, and is, in fact, already in that article. - Location (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue weight. All reliable sources agree that Oswald was a consistent though confused Marxist throughout his adult life. Attempts to connect him to anti-Marxist ideologies are foolish stretches of the imagination, though he may have attempted some clumsy reverse agent provocateur activities against anti-Castro activists in New Orleans. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The argument for Oswald's ties to Ferrie and Bannister properly reside on the conspiracy page. This is how the main assassination page is set up, and, it should be noted, there are conspiracy arguments for just about every aspect of Oswald's life, so to the "weight" argument goes both ways - why are these specific allegations so central and the others not? I'd be open, however, to an expanded link to the conspiracy page along the lines of "numerous aspects of Oswald's life and claims of associations have been made which link him to a possible conspiracy in the assassination. Most of these allegations were investigated by the WC and the HSCA and found to be without merit. A further discussion of these claims can be found..." blah blah blah. What we have currently on the page really doesn't suffice, and I don't know why the exhumation is there, seems out of place. Canada Jack (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support but only with modifications. It's important to have a discussion in broad terms about some of the most serious conspiracy allegations, so we should mention Garrison/Bannister/Ferrie. But there's too much material in this particular passage. For example, the Roberts testimony should be removed. I've long been against "one witness claimed this" factoids in this article. And the Ferrie passage should be condensed as it seems like a desperate game of gotcha - look they're in a photo together! conspiracy! Gamaliel (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The trouble we are having is that the material in its current state is not acceptable, but no other modifications or suggestions have been offered. One option is to add Jim Garrison investigation under Lee Harvey Oswald#Other investigations and dissenting theories with a few sentences and a link to Trial of Clay Shaw. Something like: "Oswald's 1963 New Orleans activities were later investigated by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, as part of his prosecution of Clay Shaw in 1967–1969." Insert the highlights of the investigation and trial, and how the major issues were addressed by the HSCA. It could state: "The HSCA determined that Oswald may have been acquainted with David Ferrie and Guy Banister, but found no evidence that the possible associations were of any significance."[3] - Location (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. Maybe if recast as a more neutral discussion of this particular conspiracy theorist trope? Guy (Help!) 17:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. The fact that Oswald worked in the same building that Banister and Ferrie did (and was seen by several people with Banister) is part of the historical record, as is the fact that Oswald and Ferrie were in the same small Civil Air Patrol group. - BrandonTR (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose All speculation and supposition. There is zero evidence that Banister and Ferrie had anything to do with Oswald shooting JFK. These two tangentially intersected Oswald's life. As did thousands of other people. If evidence should come out that B or F had any involvement, then yeah, we can revisit this. Looking at the sources used to support this section, we have mostly primary sources, cherry picked out of the investigations. The Warren Commission was following all likely paths, burrowed down this rabbit hole and came up empty. Nothing fresh has emerged in fifty years. Two secondary sources, and neither come up with anything beyond that these two people had the most tangential of interactions with Oswald for brief moments in his life. Exactly the same as thousands of others we don't mention in the article. Banister and Ferrie add nothing to this biographical article on Oswald's life and what made him notable. Happy for this stuff to go in the conspiracy article, however, where synthesis and speculation are king. --Pete (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of this material, as stated above, but I also think we need to make mention as Gamaliel has noted, of some of the more serious contentions. We already take note of the Mexico City Oswald/not Oswald claims, and perhaps the Bannister/Ferry claims can be expanded - maybe the Ferrie CAP claims within that section, a line in the NOLA section for Bannister, or, as Location suggests, in the Garrison section. I don't feel entirely comfortable excising all of it without some mention. Canada Jack (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support with modifications. There are a lot of good suggestions here. Rewritten as a more neutral discussion is fine. Folding into the Garrison investigation is fine. Location has suggested a spin-off "New Orleans Conspiracy" article, that's fine too. Folding the text into the JFK assassination conspiracy article is not such a good idea. It's not really germaine - as my friends are so fond of telling me, Oswald's possible contacts with David Ferrie and company are not necessarily indicative of a JFK assassination conspiracy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose If this were cited to a secondary source(s) I would support, but its exclusive reliance on primary sources makes it dangerously close to WP:OR. LavaBaron (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per nom. Summoned by bot. I don't even know if it warrants inclusion in the conspiracy article, but that's another discussion. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Summoned here by bot. This kind of conspiracy-mongering belongs in whatever article we have is devoted to such things. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Summoned by bot. Wikipedia is not a place for original research and for presenting conspiracy theories as facts. Unless the material is presented as a conspiracy theory, I oppose inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2015 (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.

Proposal for rewrite

Per the results of the RfC, I have removed the material noted above from the article. I submit the following to use in its place which I believe hits the main points. Please comment. - Location (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Disinformation

Nothing constructive here.

I understand why this particular article is watched so closely watched, by FBI, CIA and NSA people. Heaven help us if the truth were ever revealed, I fully understand why they've knee-jerked, in "semi-protecting" this article. Colored with carefully framed disinformation, over-polished and over-honed by the best and brightest embedded within America's defense-intelligence complex, even the most obtuse of laymen would have little choice but begrudgingly concede, at face value after reading this particular Wikipedia article, it's hopelessly tainted. Ever run a DMV on Lee Harvey Oswald? I did. It produces zip; nada; nothing. No infractions, no reckless driving; no DUIs, no speeding tickets, not one parking ticket, he always signaled, not one car accident, not one stop sign or red light did he ever blow, Lee Harvey Oswald goes down in history as the kindest, most law abiding, most thoughtful and perfect motorist, in the history of car culture? Indicative of too many chefs, it becomes painfully obvious Oswald's been scrubbed, then superimposed upon by so many intelligence specialists, that the Lee Harvey Oswald soup they've cooked up for 11th graders is even more "over-spiced," than contemporary advertiser supported reality television. Aberranced three-quarter century of bad government, nobody is ever going to believe one single word you people have written, in this article. Arguably one of the most interesting people of the 20th century, the more effort spent groping to pin it on him, the more innocent Oswald appears to be. Interesting to denote, not one single word is uttered in this article, about the Judyth Vary Baker woman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.9.54.85 (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC) If you could point out the FBI, CIA and/or NSA people watching over this article, that would be interesting. Me, I have no such affiliations. I'm a retired cab-driver in Australia. We have policies, built up over many years, and this article follows them, like all the other millions of articles we've written. If we were covering something up or constructing a fantasy, that wouldn't work. --Pete (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Careful. Some of the conspiracy websites and forums take pleasure in outing who they believe are disinformation agents. - Location (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC) The reason why Judyth Vary Baker isn't mentioned is because reliable sources have concluded that she lacks credibility.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC) On the other hand, she does receive some coverage in John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, possibly beyond the extent that she should given the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Location (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC) This article by John C. McAdams analyzes her claims and finds them dubious, to be charitable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC) John McAdams provides very dubious information. However, even with all of Wikipedia's flaws, you will find more and better information on the JFK assassination than you will ever find on sanitized encyclopedic sources like Britannica. --BrandonTR (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC) You know why you found nothing? Oswald didn't have a driver's license. Why else would he flee an assassination on a bus? Gamaliel (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) There have been lengthy, spirited debates regarding Vary Baker on Wikipedia. Consensus of the editors is that she is a complete fraud, and largely non-notable. Those few published authors lending credence to her story have reputations as being totally unreliable. Full disclosure: I was the editor who originally wrote the single reference to Vary Baker in the conspiracies article. This was meant to placate those insisting that Wikipedia must say something about her; at the same time we were debating a bio article (since deleted as non-notable) that had literally been written by her. I wrote the text saying her claims are widely considered to be a hoax. I believe it was Brandon who re-wrote it to include mention of her cuckoo-bananas supporters Marrs, Fetzer and Ventura. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC) You can choose to believe or not believe what Judyth Baker said about her relationship to Oswald. What is not in doubt is that Baker worked at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans at the same time Oswald did. Her employment records show that. --BrandonTR (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC) You can also choose to believe the moon is made of green cheese. But there are incontrovertible facts by dozen that contradict that idea. Just as there are incontrovertible facts by dozen that contradict Vary Baker's claims, and absolutely none to back them up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC) Hold on there. Isn't "consensus of the editors" ORIGINAL RESEARCH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.142.170 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC) No. It's cooperative behaviour. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Does anyone have any suggested edits? Otherwise, this section should be hatted. Gamaliel (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, that delusional kook-a-loo worked at that coffee company for a few weeks while the loser slacker Oswald also worked there, reading hunting and rifle magazines in the adjoining garage until he got deservedly fired. Those are exactly the type of people who get hired for such jobs. Liars and losers. And that proves . . . absolutely nothing whatsoever. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC) I don't have any speeding tickets, parking tickets, convictions for drunk driving, or any other driving infraction, and I've lived over a decade longer than LHO. Does that mean I'm an invention of the FBI/CIA/NSA/ 62.172.108.24 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

FAQ

This necessity of a FAQ page was discussed previously, but no action was taken (see Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 13#). Please note your suggestions for questions and answers below. - Location (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

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.

Discussion

I've placed two examples above. Some of the text has been ripped from Talk:September 11 attacks. As discussed previously, I'm skeptical that an FAQ will change things around here. - Location (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Long overdue, the archives are full of repetitive discussions that could be foreshortened by reference to FAQ. Acroterion (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Should Wikipedia articles really spend text justifying every editorial consensus? Seems like the next time someone jumps on and demands "alleged" the editors can just respond: "Please read the archived TALK pages. This question has been raised many times, and a consensus has rejected this particular edit." Let's not enable irresponsible editors. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Yes, this should be done. Canada Jack (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

--- In the Infobox AND Early life; Childhood:

from: | parents = Robert Edward Lee Oswald

to: | parents = Robert Edward Lee Oswald, Sr.

from: Lee Harvey Oswald was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 18, 1939, to World War I veteran Robert Edward Lee Oswald (March 4, 1896 – August 19, 1939)

to: Lee Harvey Oswald was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 18, 1939, to World War I veteran Robert Edward Lee Oswald, Sr. (March 4, 1896 – August 19, 1939)

• Lee Harvey Oswald's father was 'Sr.' and his brother was 'Jr.'; source is his father's grave marker

It would be appreciated if you would make these revisions promptly.

69.209.224.27 (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 17:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Oswald's "last words"

UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP long-term abuse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is still no reference in the article to the fact that Oswald still maintained his innocence even after he was shot. In affidavits and his testimony, Detective Combest said that he asked Oswald (after he was shot) if he had anything to say; Oswald shook his head as if saying "no" and lasped into unconciousness shortly afterwards. It doesn't seem to be an important addition, but it could certainly make a proposal for appropriate wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.196 (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Do we have a source saying that he maintained his innocence with his antepenultimate breath? Otherwise it's just us making stuff up for entertainment. --Pete (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC) I've done some research and Combest said it in his Warren Commission testimony, his affidavits and to several researchers. Interestingly, he added a extra detail to Anthony Summers, saying that Oswald also did a clenched fist salute before losing consciousness but he never mentioned that before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.152.51 (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC) So you are saying that Combest actually said that LHO maintained his innocence? --Pete (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC) I let Combest himself take over: Mr. COMBEST. ...after I realized the seriousness of the wound...trying to let him know if he was ever going to say anything he was going to have to say it then. I did [thought he was dying]. When I first started asking him he did. He looked up at me, seemed to recognize that I--who was talking to him. ...I said, "Do you have anything you want to tell us now," and he shook his head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.152.51 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Like I said, I do not consider it an important addition, but it could certainly make a proposal for appropriate wording. In my opinion Combest's exact quoted & sourced words could be added within the events' timeline of the article along with attribution, in the first paragraph of the "Death" section worded something along the lines of: Detective Combest asked the mortally wounded Oswald if he would be say anything "before it is too late." Combest repeated the question but Oswald had just shook his head. He lost conciouness shortly afterwards So even Combest didn't say the words or make the point that you want us to. Have you read our sourcing policy? --Pete (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2016

"Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."

The description of Oswald as a 'sniper' is misleading. He was a former U.S. marine whose specialty was radar operation. He was at best only an average shot. The epithet 'sniper' suggests this was his military expertise; it most certainly was not.

"According to five U.S. government investigations,[n 1] Oswald shot and killed Kennedy."

There were only two official U.S. government investigations into the Kennedy assassination, the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

"Oswald shot and killed Kennedy as he traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in the city of Dallas, Texas."

Oswald never went to trial, and was never found guilty by a jury of his peers. Assertions by government investigations do not a 'guilty' verdict make. No lawyer represented Oswald at either the Warren Commission or the HSCA. It is also arguable, and has frequently been argued, that if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, the evidence against him would not have stacked up. So-called 'television trials' are, likewise, no substitute for a proper hearing of evidence, for and against, in open court. With this in mind, the use of the words 'alleged' and 'allegedly' should be deployed throughout.

Lemontricycle (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The description of Oswald as a 'sniper' is misleading. He was a former U.S. marine whose specialty was radar operation. He was at best only an average shot. The epithet 'sniper' suggests this was his military expertise; it most certainly was not. "Sniper" is a generic term, and since he is most famous for shooting the president, the word is apt. He achieved "sharpshooter" status which made him an above-average shot, despite claims otherwise.

There were only two official U.S. government investigations into the Kennedy assassination, the Warren Commission and the HSCA. The Dallas police investigated and concluded Oswald shot the president, hence the charge (Nov 1963); The FBI investigated and concluded Oswald shot the president (Dec 1963); The Secret Service investigated the assassination, but that investigation was terminated as the FBI became the lead investigative arm of the Warren Commission. So I'd say the number should be four, at least by this list.

Oswald never went to trial, and was never found guilty by a jury of his peers. Assertions by government investigations do not a 'guilty' verdict make. You couldn't be more wrong. You are confusing and conflating Common Law presumptions of innocence - which pertain to trials - with determination of guilt. Deceased people routinely are declared "guilty" of crimes they are accused of despite never standing trial. That's why we don't call John Wilkes Booth the "alleged" assassin of Lincoln; why we don't say Hitler "allegedly" was responsible for all the crimes he instigated during WWII; why we don't call those mass killers who died while carrying out the "alleged" perpetrators, etc. etc.

It is also arguable, and has frequently been argued, that if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, the evidence against him would not have stacked up. Sure, it's been argued, but most prosecutors dealing with the evidence against Oswald would have had NO problem convicting him. There are something like 50 pieces of evidence linking him to the crime and almost none of the evidence there would have not been admissible. The problem with the conspiracy-theorist echo chamber is they believe their own nonsense, such as the belief that virtually none of this evidence would hold up or be declared inadmissible, such as the Single Bullet owing to arguments over its custody. We have a witness who says it was Oswald firing, we have his fingerprints in the nest, his RIFLE on the floor, ballistcally matched to the SB and two bullet fragments, his prints on the rifle, etc etc. To claim there was planted/faked evidence REQUIRES evidence which suggests this is so. But we don't have that here. And, given the mountain of evidence linking his to the crime, even if we ignore the witness who said it was Oswald (Even the WC didn't think his testimony was conclusive), there is still more than enough evidence to convict him. This would have been a slam-dunk. Canada Jack (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Perennial argument by conspiracy enthusiasts. There is no serious disagreement among academic and journalistic scholarship that Oswald was Kennedy's assassin. The only real debate is whether there was a wider conspiracy. "Allegedly" is a weasel word that seeks to imply doubt where none exists. Acroterion (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the shooting, it was pretty common for expert marksmen to intentionally miss a few shots so they wouldn't get put into the most dangerous positions. I've spoken to some Vietnam vets, all good ol' boys who spent plenty of time hunting and knew how to shoot, who admit that pretty much everyone they knew did that unless they were suicidally gung-ho. Some didn't even hide it: they'd get a couple points short of Marksman, and fire every shot about a meter off. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In America

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Why does this article say Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK even though he never had a public trial? Shouldn't he be called a suspect? 221.194.176.22 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree. Jusdafax 00:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Presumption of innocence" only means that you have to prove that someone did something before you imprison them. Various investigations found that Oswald did it, but they weren't about to imprison his body. (This one has been discussed so many times here that it probably does need an FAQ.) - Location (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• <ec>By the same logic John Wilkes Booth should be described in the same manner, yet nobody is concerned about his civil rights. He's equally dead and is equally described as an assassin by scholarly sources. The same principles could be applied to anyone who died before they could be tried, but we don't try the dead. There were, of course, multiple investigations of LHO that reached this conclusion, they just weren't trials. We probably ought to have an FAQ to address this, but such proposals have been drowned in the past by walls of text. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not trying to be controversial but seriously it seems a little bit weird to be reading assertions of guilt about people who were accused of crimes but never proven in a court of law to have committed them (even if due to death). Also, if you read again from Universal Declaration of Human Rights the article I mentioned, it doesn't mention detainment at all. It is saying people have a right to be presumed innocent. This is why people on the news call people "the accused" even when it's reasonably obvious the person is likely guilty. There should probably be a more clear guideline about this because it feels like we're violating the rights of people posthumously. 221.194.176.22 (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not controversial; it's simply a failure to understand the concepts of "rights", "presumption of innocence", and "guilt" in a legal context. Now, I've looked over the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I cannot find how this version of human rights is extended to corpses. I'm no legal scholar, but I don't think we need to be concerned about violating Oswald's "posthumous rights" since he stopped being a "member of the human family" shortly after he met Jack Ruby. - Location (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If multiple US government investigations conclude that Oswald killed Kennedy, and they don't wriggle around with words like "alleged" or "accused", then we don't . EOS. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The question betrays a basic misunderstanding of what "presumption of innocence" means. It means that when someone is at trial, they are presumed innocent until evidence links them to a crime - i.e. the onus is on the prosecution to establish that this person - presumed innocent - in fact carried out the crime in question. This is in contrast to other systems where the onus is reversed and the defendant, presumed guilty, has to establish his or her innocence.

In regards to Oswald, the question is moot as there is no trial at play so no presumption of innocence per se. It is completely normal to consider a person guilty of a crime when they are no longer alive to go to trial, if the evidence establishes that guilt. Death doesn't mean a defendant avoids a "guilty" judgement. The evidence which no doubt would have been presented at trial firmly establishes his guilt according to two of the most exhaustive investigations in American - maybe world - history. As previously noted, there is no similar hue and cry over whether Booth was "guilty," as he didn;t stand trial, nor do we preface any discussion of Hitler or Stalin with "the alleged perpetrator," etc. because they never stood trial for their crimes. Canada Jack (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if my ip address has changed but I'm the original opener of this question. So I'm OK with this concept of assuming people are guilty if there was no trial, but I think in fairness it should be blanket applied, or at least written somewhere what the process is to determine wording. Today I was reading Christopher Columbus's page and there's a section called 'Accusations of tyranny during governorship' which goes on to show in my opinion overwhelming evidence that these were not just accusations, including mentioning numerous testimonies and so on. So my point here is that if Wikipedia is claiming Lee Harvey Oswald definitely did the things he was accused, can we have a clearly defined list of requirements for this type of thing? I personally believe there needs to be some kind of mention about how guilt is assumed by default because a trial was impossible and so on, but that's just an opinion. Either way, I think everyone should have a fair article, even if they are dead. Is it possible even one person throughout history that we are all so certain was guilty wasn't? 69.16.138.116 (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

But the investigations found Oswald guilty of the crimes for which he was charged! Your premise, that those who didn't stand trial for their crimes are merely "alleged" perpetrators meaning we can never assign guilt to those people, simply doesn't make sense. What about those mass-killers who kill themselves or are killed by police, shouldn't we, by your logic, refer to them as "alleged" mass murderers as they never went to trial? Check out the Columbine High School massacre page, and you see "perpetrators" even though those guys never stood trial. Why? Because the investigations said those two guys did the crime, as all the official investigations did in the Kennedy case. Same goes for the Virginia Tech shooting, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and any number of other crimes where, absolutely routinely, the person who died carrying out the crime is identified as "perpetrator" and not "alleged perpetrator" despite never having stood trial. Canada Jack (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I should also add that it isn't "Wikipedia... claiming Lee Harvey Oswald definitely did the things he was accused [of]", it's the official investigations which concluded he did those things. And we affix the "perpetrator" label as per those investigations. I should also add that, arguably, the questions raised by critics over the conclusions of the Warren Commission were addressed by the House Select Committee's investigation. And they came to an identical conclusion in terms of Oswald's role. So, more so than in just about any case you can think of, the questions have been addressed, the evidence assessed and re-assessed... and Oswald did, they concluded. Trouble is, many of the very questions addressed by the HSCA are STILL being raised by critics who refuse to acknowledge that they were answered back in 1979. Canada Jack (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize with the anonymous editor, however, we've had this argument many times and consensus of the editors is not to use "alleged." Read any major newspaper article when the anniversary of the assassination rolls around, and you'll see Oswald referred to as the assassin, not the alleged assassin. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the world does agree he was the assassin. And I probably should have picked a less controversial figure to bring this topic up on but here we are. My point is that yes, mostly everyone says and agrees that he did this. However I assume that Wikipedia is involved with facts rather than reporting. Actually I would prefer that all people found guilty of crimes were referred to as 'so and so was found guilty of x by y court/judge/investigation' rather than 'so and so did x' as I find the latter to be a bit anti-encyclopedic compared to the first. The fact in my view is that he was found guilty by investigations. That doesn't scientifically mean he actually did those things and again, it feels weird -to me- to read in an unbiased document that he or anyone actually did anything which was not certainly verifiable via direct evidence such as video of the incident combined with confession without duress. Then again maybe I'm being too pie-in-the-sky. I just want to note again, this topic for me isn't actually about LHO specifically; I just happened to post it here. 69.16.138.108 (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reporting. It is an encyclopedia, not an independent investigatory organization or journalistic outlet capable of conducting its own inquiries or drawing its own conclusions. See WP:5P and the proposed FAQ below. Acroterion (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I also think it is better not to firmly state Oswald assassinated Kennedy because there are many instances in history when even those who have been convicted of crimes have later been found innocent. It's better to say these investigations concluded he was the lone assassin, although at least one found there was a probable conspiracy. And to call Oswald a sniper in the first sentence is misleading; saying an ex-Marine or school book warehouse clerk would be more accurate.Mdus5678 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

See the discussion below which addresses these points. --Pete (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Texas journalist Jim Marrs, who is one of the foremost authorities on the assassination, discusses how Oswald worked for the government as an informant or even agent, and tried to stop the assassination. You can find him writing about this in his book, Crossfire, and even speaking on a radio program at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojf2d6W5aHE . Author James Douglass brings up similar points in his book, JFK and the Unspeakable. As Marrs says, Oswald was quite possibly “the hero who's trying to stop it all, and they tagged him as the patsy.” What if he's right? What if years or decades from now, it's definitively discovered that Oswald tried to stop the assassination and was indeed a patsy as he said? And Wikipedia will be seen as one of those who put out a false narrative in saying he was definitely the assassin. It's one thing for a media member who hasn't really studied the case to say that, and usually the media report attributes that to the Warren Report. It's another for a site that is supposed to be an online encyclopedia that has more resources to do so. The Warren Commission has long been discredited as a rush job that tried to deflect blame from the CIA or Soviets, which LBJ suspected at the time and didn't want to deal with another Soviet confrontation or a civil war with the CIA. The HSCA was another government panel that blamed Mafia figures but not government agencies like the CIA, even though if you read actual testimony like from CIA agent Jim Wilcott, you will find them saying the CIA was involved. These bodies just disregarded those comments or said they weren't credible because they couldn't find other CIA agents to say similar things. It's hard for ex-CIA agents to go against the grain like Wilcott did, and he was harassed for speaking out. The point remains: No one has ever proven that Oswald killed Kennedy. Even Warren Report defender Gerald Posner said he believed Mark Lane would have gotten Oswald acquitted. Mdus5678 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jim Marrs is a conspiracy theorist, and we don't use conspiracy theorists. James W. Douglass is likewise not a historian but an ideological revisionist. Jim Wilcott repeated rumors that Oswald was employed or used by the CIA in the past, no in no way demonstrated any employment of Oswald during the assassination.

Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic sources, and does not treat fringe or conspiracy theories as true. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the Warren report most accurately represents the reality of the assassination.

Think about it: if there is some crazy conspiracy, then everyone here but you is in on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems that Canada Jack is still using his biases to keep this article's introduction wildly inaccurate. No article should describe LHO as the assassin, only that several commissions believed he was the assassin. There was no trial, and if there was, it is now almost certain that it would never go to jury (at least not for long) for lack of evidence. It is ridiculous to look at the historical record, read the results of several, wildly corrupt panels, and conclude that the most profound assassination in American history was sewn up. Let's be clear, that is exactly what the first sentence is doing, and even modern history textbooks no longer do this. Thus, what Canada Jack (and friends) are saying is that they know better than the millions of declassified records and the modern consensus of citizens and scholars. Please consider dumping this POV intro!99th Percentile (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd agree to the extent that the intro should be phrased as it used to be along the lines of "Lee Harvey Oswald, who, according to numerous government investigations, was the sniper who killed president Kennedy..." but I didn't write it as it stands now.

But if one claims in the next breath that "it is now almost certain that it would never go to jury... for lack of evidence," we see the result of a half century of lies and misinformation from the conspiracy crowd who beat that drum, despite the reams of evidence that would likely have easily convicted Oswald.

Let's say that Oswald's lawyer if he had lived had tried to defend Oswald in 1964. At that point, there was little discussion of the "grassy knoll" in terms of a possible location for a sniper. But even if that aspect was well-known then (it wasn't until about 1967 that that became an issue), the evidence linking Oswald to the crime was overwhelming. The prosecution could note that some 95% of earwitnesses heard three or fewer shots; that a similar percentage reported shots from a single direction. And that the only sniper seen was firing from the TSBD, there were about 10 witnesses who could establish that. Next, we have a witness who positively identified Oswald, that Oswald could not account for his whereabouts at the time of the assassination, that numerous statements he made after his arrest were provable lies and he alone fled the scene shortly thereafter. Oswald's lawyer could raise doubt on the positive identification, and point out that he wasn't seen on the stairs fleeing. But the prosecuter could also point out that that SOMEONE fired from there and that witness would have seen them if not Oswald, thus undermining their credibility.

But, more basically, we have Oswald's fingerprints in the sniper's nest, we have them on boxes he'd not normally access during the course of his work, we have a paper bag with his prints consistent with a description of a bag he denied carrying seen by two witnesses, a bag which could have held the rifle, and, most incriminatingly, his RIFLE hidden on the floor, with his fingerprint, a rifle he denied owning yet his wife admitted he had one and photographed him with it, a rifle ballistically matched to the single bullet and the other bullet fragments found in the limo etc. Further, some 10 or so witnesses who SAW Oswald shot and kill a cop and/or flee the scene, an arrest where he attempted to shoot another cop, the gun ballistically matched to some of the shells found at the scene. These actions betray a consciousness of guilt. And, he was found with forged identifications which matched the name of the person ordering the gun he was arrested with and the rifle he claimed he never owned.

The conspiracy crowd has convinced itself that Oswald would never have got a conviction. The precise opposite is true, especially given that most of the easily refuted arguments which would have emerged after Oswald's trial, if he had lived, for the most part would have been tossed out. One classic example is the chain of custody for C399, the "single bullet." Most experienced prosecutors say the "chain of custody" issue would have not been an issue at all and the evidence would have been admissible, which is what happened when it was used as evidence in several mock trials in front of real judges.

You've been lied to, 99th percentile. Took me 20+ years of being a conspiracy advocate to realize that, but there is a mini-industry of advocates whose very being rests on the premise that there was a conspiracy. And they have repeated lies for more than a half century to convince the American public the Warren Commission was wrong. They had enough strong points to warrant a re-opening with the HSCA in 1977, but the evidence pointing to Oswald was seen to be iron-clad, as was the evidence pointing to a single assassin doing the damage, though the possibility of a second gunman - who missed, they concluded - wasn't ruled out, nor the possibility of others being involved. But in terms of Oswald himself, he did it, it's such a slam dunk that those who say otherwise either don't know the evidence against him, or are delusional. Sadly for many in that crowd, the latter is the case. Canada Jack (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

At this point, I'll take your old into to the current one. I didn't realize it could get worse, but it did. BTW, like most people with only superficial knowledge of the assassination, you focus on minutiae that wouldn't even make it to court. Any prosecutor would simply ask Oswald about his background in Intelligence and the case would fold in the first few hours. Only if the "fix was in" would it have proceeded to forensics, where the available evidence would have been laughed out of court. Please don't try to assert that you know the facts of this case, CJ. If you want a detailed analysis of modern history books and the errors still present (and why such errors are unethical), you can go here and here. 99th Percentile (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"those who say otherwise either don't know the evidence against him, or are delusional." I know the evidence as well or better than you, and I'm not delusional, and I don't agree with your take on the case. It's unfortunate that you cannot allow others to have an honest disagreement with you. No no, they must be ignorant or crazy. Frankly, that's no way to treat people. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Any prosecutor would simply ask Oswald about his background in Intelligence and the case would fold in the first few hours." This is an example of the fairy=tale land that has been constructed by the conspiracy crowd. In 1964, if he was to ask about those ties, and Oswald said he had none, they would need to bring forward evidence of such ties. So, 99, what would come to trial in 1964 about this? And how would this negate the other evidence against Oswald?

"I know the evidence as well or better than you, and I'm not delusional, and I don't agree with your take on the case. So, the fact that we have a witness who positively identified Oswald as the sniper; 10 witnesses who saw him shoot Tippit, or flee the scene with a gun; his palm and fingerprints on boxes which were used as a gun rest and sniper's seat, a bag which carried the rifle - and he was seen with by two witnesses - with his fingerprints; his RIFLE on the same floor; the bullets and fragments ballisticllay linked to that rifle to the exclusion of all rifles on the planet; his fingerprints on the rifle; his lying about even having had a rifle; his fake identity cards which matched the alias used for the rifle and the gun he was arrested with... this " would have been laughed out of court" according to 99? This is "minutia"? Perhaps 99, you could explain the steps of the trial which would result in Oswald's acquittal once the intelligence ties are brought up... ?

It's hard to see how Oswald could have defended himself and avoided a conviction given the reams of evidence linking him to the crime. Murder convictions routinely are won with one or two pieces of evidence directly linking someone to the crime. In this case, we have dozens of pieces of evidence. And to claim evidence was faked and/or planted, we'd need EVIDENCE that this was so, not the imperial wave of the hand from the conspiracy crowd. This is the reality these people can't - and won't - face. Even the suggestion of "intelligence ties" is laughable - even if they found these ties for the 1964 trial, Oswald would still be convicted in all likelihood on the evidence I've mentioned! Rarely has there ever been such a slam-dunk case where the evidence is a veritable mountain leading to probable conviction. But the conspiracy crowd pretends there is only a flimsy and circumstantial case against Oswald. It is like they are in an alternate reality. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone were to say that there was not a strong case against Oswald, yes, that would be downright silly. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, as with the OJ Simpson trial, what may seem like a certain conviction may not end up that way. But in terms of a 1964 trial against Oswald, given the stacks of evidence against Oswald (some, but not all, mentioned above), the unlikelihood that much of this evidence would have been inadmissible (he'd still have a tough hill to climb even if we threw out the positive witness ID - good chance of that - and the chain of custody of C399 - little chance of that), and the irrelevancy in terms of his culpability if there was thought to be a second sniper or of his supposed CIA/whatever ties (even the HSCA which suspected, but couldn't prove a conspiracy AND with the presence of a second sniper, concluded nevertheless that Oswald was guilty of killing the president), Oswald would have been convicted. It`s a pure fantasy to pretend that there was a good chance he`d have been acquitted given that. Besides, if he had lived his "guilty" verdict would simply be dismissed as having come out of a "show trial" and not reflecting the conspiracy theories which emerged later. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

"the bullets and fragments ballisticllay linked to that rifle to the exclusion of all rifles on the planet". OK Jack, here's a challenge. I'll try to keep it an any subsequent remarks friendly. I think that what you've written in the quote above is not true. Got a source for me? Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

One editor has typed about 50% of all the words recorded in the past 12 years or so on the TALK pages for Wikipedia's articles on JFK's assassination. Why the sudden silence? Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Joe, I didn't see this until now (the request for a source on the bullet/bullet fragment claim). For the record, I've just marked 10 years on wikipedia and i think I started to engage in debates on these pages in 2008... Okay, I claimed that "the bullets [i.e. CE 399] and fragments" were linked to the Carcano to the exclusion of all other rifles. Let me be more specific - since I said "bullets" and there was only a single whole bullet found - the bullet (singular) matched to the rifle was the CE 399 bullet, the so-called "single" or "magic" bullet, as were two of the larger bullet fragments found, as were the three bullet casings found at the sniper's nest.

From the HSCA report: The rifle Boone found, a. 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano, was analyzed by the FBI in 1963-64 and by the committee's firearms panel in 1978, as was the other firearms evidence that was recovered. It was determined in both investigations that the bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital had been fired from the rifle found in the depository, as were two fragments recovered from the Presidential limousine. (74) Further, the three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the depository were determined to have been fired in the Mannlicher-Carcano.8 (75) The references are: 74) Report of the Firearms Panel, VII appendix to the HSCA-JFK para. 135-146 (hereinafter firearms report); Warren Report, p. 85.; 75) Id., firearms report, at 131-134.

Other smaller bullet fragments could not be positively linked as they lacked the distinctive barrel markings the intact bullet and the two fragments had. However, NAA analysis determined that the various fragments fell into two distinct groups which were consistent with the single bullet and the fragments linked to the rifle, suggesting, though not proving, that two and only two bullets were involved in causing the wounds to the president and the governor. However, both investigations were definitive in concluding CE 399 and the two large fragments (and the three shell cases) were fired by the individual rifle found in the Depository. Canada Jack (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not sure the above is entirely accurate, and I'll have some notes when I can finish the underlying research. If I take too long to respond, feel free to crack any jokes that occur to you at my expense, as I've already done the same to you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Joe - though I know there are some who try to explain this all away, I believe that the experts at the WC and the HSCA were unanimous in their conclusion about the bullet and two fragments being fired by the Carcano. There is room for debate on the NAA analysis, that's for sure, but even there, the results were consistent with what you'd expect if there were only two bullets involved. And with the bullets and shells from the Tippit killing (the shells were definitively linked to Oswald's revolver, there was divided opinion on the bullets as they were of a smaller caliber than the barrel of the revolver and therefore didn't have unambiguous barrel striations), some of the forensic ambiguity is diminished by the fact some 10 witnesses saw Oswald kill the officer or flee. Canada Jack (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I going to say. You got everything right on this - well done. Researching this for sources I even learned one or two things I didn't know. I'll have some concluding remarks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, here we go. First please keep in mind, I didn't raise this issue to suggest your understanding of the matter is incomplete, I did it for me - to see how far the evidence in question goes to rule out a second shooter.

• When we discuss "the fragments", we usually mean (as you've already clarified) five fragments: the two large bullet pieces known as CE 567 and 569[4], and three smaller fragments. According to the FBI, both large fragments retained enough jacket markings to be matched to Oswald's rifle. The FBI's findings in this matter have not been seriously challenged.
• All five fragments were examined twice by neutron activation analyses, first by the FBI in 1964 and then by Vincent Guinn in 1977.
• The FBI's "spectroscopy" analysis has long been criticized as not having obtained enough information to conclude that all the fragments came from the same group of bullets. Guinn's conclusions have also been criticized, even by those agreeing with them (see the linked article in the next point).
• In 2004, another NAA analysis[5] concluded that JFK and Connally were hit by only two bullets.
• However, in 2007 yet another study[6] found that the scientific and statistical assumptions used by the earlier studies were wrong, and did not rule out a second assassin.

Thanks again for letting me pick your brain. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The problem with the official conclusions is that while the evidence seems pretty definitive, all that we can do is conclude those particular fragments and the bullet can be definitively linked to the rifle in question. It is highly probable that the other fragments are from the same bullets, given that the wounds are consistent with two, not three or more bullets, and it is hard to imagine how a third bullet would have shattered without leaving some obvious damage to either a person or the limo. But it is not impossible, so all we can conclude is that the evidence is consistent with two bullets. When it comes to the NAA analysis, while the technique suggests two and only two bullets, we can't preclude the unlikely possibility that a third bullet had a similar composition as one of the others, or a multiple number of bullets did so. (The analysis is predicated on the then-non-uniformity of bullet compositions owing to the manufacturing process, the forensic technique has since been abandoned as bullet composition is more typically uniform between individual bullets in a batch.) The debate on the NAA analysis usually hinges on whether you can PROVE only two bullets were involved. I'd say you can't, but it is highly unlikely that another bullet would match via this technique. Canada Jack (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Any assistance please?

I thought people who edit this article maybe able to assist me with this article. The Interloper: Lee Harvey Oswald Inside the Soviet Union it is being put up for speedy deletion for copyright violations. I have never had to deal with this before.

Any help would be most helpful. Thank you!! Moscowamerican (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use the Minsk photograph for Oswald.

Please don't use the Minsk photograph for Oswald, since it is the left side of Oswald's face doubled over. Use a Dallas photo, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrejo (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Petrejo: Can you please provide a reliable source for your claim about the Minsk photo? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We need a very reliable source. It certainly doesn't appear to be "doubled over." This was long before Photoshopping was available. And why would there be a need to create such a photo??? Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Atsugi

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.

---

Oswald's service at the CIA's U-2 radar base in Atsugi Japan (1957-1958) should be part of his Wikipedia history. Should I draft an insertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 04:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the Naval Air Facility Atsugi. Atsugi is not a CIA facility although it would not be surprising if they conducted some operations there. The article already mentions Oswald's deployment to Japan. Any addition you propose to make must be referenced to an impeccably reliable source, 5198blk. Please do not reference conspiracy theorists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposed insertion: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell.<http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/><https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/the-people-of-the-cia-bissell-an-agency-leader.html> Bissell, CIA Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Director General Charles Cabell (brother of Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell) were later fired by President John F. Kennedy for their role in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.<http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-nsas-bay-pigs-9328> 5198blk (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is quite sufficient. The rest of it is largely irrelevant to Oswald. Sundayclose (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The third sentence is admittedly a bit much (even though I believe it relevant), but the second sentence is definitely relevant. It provides relevant background and details of LHO's lengthy assignment at Atsugi. 5198blk (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I fail to see how the second sentence provides any "details of LHO's lengthy assignment at Atsugi". For that matter, I don't see how it has anything to do with Oswald. Let's just stay with the first sentence, per WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence in reliable sources that Lee Harvey Oswald was directly involved in the U2 program. And even if he was, that does not prove that his Atsugi service had anything to do with his assassination of JFK which took place five years later. The only connection demonstrated by reliable sources is that Oswald was a pseudo-Marxist schmoe loser influenced by his own crazed assessment of world events who decided to take a potshot at JFK and was a good enough shot to have killed him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Cullen, "So, for the record, you were the one who "personalized" the exchange" - if you really want to go back to the root of the personalization, it started with your use of the word "inane.

Is there any link between LHO and the CIA in his service here? No. Just speculation, and we can do without that, thank you! --Pete (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: second sentence. If you tell the reader that Oswald was assigned to Atsugi, it is irresponsible to leave out that Atsugi was a base in Bissell's U-2 program. There is nothing is the sentence speculating a "link" between LHO and the CIA. But readers should know about the base's function. After all, in Russia Oswald dangled important information about the U-2 to the Soviets, did he not? Cullen, your rant was unnecessary and reveals a lot. 2601:14D:4100:2864:A5A5:B2F3:67F5:4E62 (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign that last post. 2601:14D:4100:2864:A5A5:B2F3:67F5:4E62 (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Please don't edit while signed out to give the impression that there is another person here besides you. Read WP:SOCK. And there is no rant above. People can disagree with you without it being described as a rant. You need to stop personalizing this discussion. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you continue down that path. And finally, whether or not Oswald "dangled important information about the U-2" has any relationship to his time at Atsugi is, in fact, pure speculation. You have not provided a reliable source that backs it up. And unless you can do so you need to drop that part of your argument. You seem to be unfamiliar with some important policies: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH. Please read them. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Together, these three policies mean that we need a reliable source to state something. We cannot simply tumble in a barrowload of facts and ask readers to make their own conclusions. This is where many of the Kennedy conspiracy theorists come unstuck; they want to just dangle a lot of things in the air and hint that it's all connected somehow. We can't do that. We need a reliable source to state the link, and your average conspiracy blog isn't a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I posted plenty of reliable sources for my second sentence. I did not propose to go as far as adding that, in Russia, LHO dangled information he had learned as a marine radar operator, even though this is documented in Warren Commission Appendix 3, page 693. Atsugi was the main place LHO spent in that capacity, and thus where he had acquired much of his knowledge. I made the comment to provide more relevance for Atsugi's function as part of this discussion. The greater speculation would be to assume that LHO planned to omit anything he learned in Atsugi from what he would divulge. For convenience, I'll restate my second sentence here: "Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell.<http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/><https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/the-people-of-the-cia-bissell-an-agency-leader.html>" No hints there, but a fact that provides a more complete history of LHO than currently appears. If you would prefer that I include LHO's Russian offer to divulge radar operating information in order to "tie things together" better, I will do so. 5198blk (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"Atsugi was the main place LHO spent in that capacity, and thus where he had acquired much of his knowledge": Give us a reliable source not your opinion. Read WP:SYNTH.

"Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell": Give us a reliable source that this has anything to do with Oswald, not your opinion. Read WP:SYNTH.

Is there something about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH that you don't understand? If so, we can try help you. Otherwise this useless discussion is getting very pointless, very quickly. If you keep this up, I suggest reading another Wikipedia policy, WP:IDHT, because editors are sometimes blocked for repeating the same arguments over and over and over despite repeated and numerous corrections by other editors. If this is all you have, please move on. You're wasting your time as well as ours. I don't plan to respond to the same old stuff again and again. Sundayclose (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems that 5198 has bought the line from many in the conspiracy crowd: Oswald was a radar operator at Atsugi; the CIA ran operations and the U2 bomber flew out Atsugi; therefore Oswald was working with the CIA and on the U2 bomber. This is a logical fallacy, given the nature of the base, one of the largest American air bases, serving forces during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thousands of military personnel served there and went through there, so to imply without evidence that Oswald was involved in the top-secret stuff, one has to do much more than imply a link. No more than suggesting an air traffic controller at a big airport was a spy because the CIA flew flights out of the same airport.

Further, and this is a point the conspiracy theorists like to gloss over, one would expect the CIA to recruit reliable, under-the-radar (so to speak) operatives who would blend in and not call attention to themselves. Yet, while at Atsugi, Oswald was court-martialed not once, but twice. Hardly indicative of the personality of someone we'd expect to be entrusted with these sorts of secret assignments. Sure enough, not only does this "super agent" defect - or whatever - to the USSR AND tell them he'd spill the beans on what he knew at that base - likely very little - this "CIA operative" consents to be interviewed BY THE PRESS, his name splashed in newspapers across America in 1959. If Oswald was indeed working with the CIA up to that point, his utility was destroyed. He could neither be trusted by the Americans nor the Soviets.

Yet for 50 years the conspiracy crowd has insisted that this barely literate self-important twerp whose stated goal was to become prime minister (!) of America somehow was entrusted with carrying out or being involved in some of what would have been some of the most sensitive American operations of the day begs the question: How stupid do you think we are to believe that? Yet, here we are, in 2016, discussing this inane theory. There is a place for these inane theories - the conspiracy page. Lacking reliable sources which state that Oswald indeed worked in these sensitive areas while at the base, it suffices to leave his presence there as a brief mention. Canada Jack (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Stick to the two sentences I proposed and stop making straw man arguments. I gave reliable sources for my proposed edits. That you all go off the deep end re: "conspiracy theories" when some undisputed factual information is inserted suggests paranoia. Present the facts without any conclusions - don't hide them so readers remain uninformed. Let them research the facts and draw their own conclusions. BTW, the U-2 was not a "bomber." Sheesh. And when Oswald was at Atsugi, neither the Korean nor Vietnam wars were active. What a crowd this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And when Oswald was at Atsugi, neither the Korean nor Vietnam wars were active. But the base was active, and one of the largest American bases in Asia, which is the point. It wasn't some dinky airfield where everyone knew everyone - at times there were thousands stationed in and around that base!

But to the main point, just because something is a "fact" doesn't mean it warrants inclusion on a page, it's is as simple as that. Lee Harvey Oswald worked at the base in question, that is a fact. And since this is a page about Lee Harvey Oswald, that fact likely warrants inclusion. Another fact? Secret programs were run off the base, including the U2 spy plane and other CIA endeavours. Which is hardly a sinister thing. News flash, 5198 - The US military and other agencies sometimes are involved in secret programs! And, given the size of the base, it is not surprising that many different operations were in play there. But to be included on the page, we need an explicit CONNECTION to the SUBJECT of the page - which is Lee Harvey Oswald. Otherwise the reader is left with the impression that since the fact was mentioned, there was a connection to Oswald. But no reliable source claims this.

To warrant inclusion, IWO, you need to supply a reliable source which explicitly links Oswald to the programs in question. But since only conspiracy theorists believe this - despite the investigations by the WC and the HSCA, the latter of which concluded "conspiracy," who found no credible connections here - and those are not reliable sources, we can't include them.

Wikipedia isn't designed to "let the people decide," giving them many different views on controversial subjects, it is designed to replicate what reliable sources tell us about particular subjects. Just as when we discuss Evolution, we don't give equal time to Creationists as they aren't considered reliable sources as they don't do what we call "science" per se, we don't generally insert alternate theories on subjects which aren't from reliable sources. We may mention controversies - Creation science is mentioned as a religiously infused reaction to Evolution which has won political victories on the teaching of Evolution, as an example, and claims of conspiracy are mentioned on the main assassination page as claims of conspiracy were instrumental in reopening the investigation in the 1970s - but we don't delve into these non-reliable sourced interpretations of evidence and conclusions on the main bodies of the pages in question, instead those issues are explored on pages which are explicitly from the conspiracy, non-reliable source viewpoints. Canada Jack (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I request that an uninvolved editor close this discussion. 5198blk has repeated the same argument numerous times, and each time the argument is refuted by a consensus of editors. 5198blk, you need to stop this or we'll be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have ordered three books I anticipate will make the connection you're asking for. Please allow me a few days to receive them. It is not a "news flash" to me that the "US military and other agencies sometimes are involved in secret programs." That's condescending. I agree that the U2 was not sinister, but throwing in "other CIA endeavours" as being non-sinister is ludicrous. The CIA, especially during the era we're discussing, was up to all kinds of sinister things. Many of the "arguments" attributed to me in these comments are not mine - they appear to be the standard fare directed at anyone who is viewed as threatening the "lone nut" theory. Sundayclose, only in your world have I been refuted. The sentences I've proposed are 100% true. Your only beef is whether they should be in the article. That's not refutation, it's editorial control based on ideology. 5198blk (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Refuted" as in every editor here has pointed out that your proposal violates core Wikipedia policies, yet you refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus. One more point and I'll leave this discussion for a while and move on to more reasonable, productive discussions. Just because a book has been written about something doesn't mean the book is a WP:RS. Anyone can write a book, and there have been thousands of fringe theory books written on the JFK assassination, the vast majority of which are not reliable sources for this article. I could write a book claiming that the Moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it true. Wikipedia puts great emphasis on scholarly publications by experts who are widely recognized as such by mainstream academia. A rule of thumb is, if you can find your ideas in a major encyclopedia with strict editorial control (such as Encyclopædia Britannica), it might be acceptable here. Many, many new single purpose editors have tried and failed to get their fringe ideas into articles. If you think you're the exception on this article, I'm afraid you're mistaken because JFK articles have a lot of eyes on them. Until you can start accepting the policies noted above that everyone here must accept, you'll never get anything to stay in an article. It's as simple as that. There are conspiracy websites that would welcome you input. This is not one of them. Sundayclose (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My proposal hasn't violated "core Wikipedia policies" until, even by your rules, I can't document that LHO was involved in U2 radar tracking. I've asked for a few days. But you already have your mind made up. My prediction - no matter what any book says, you'll reject it because it doesn't comport with the WC report and the staunch "lone nut" dominance of this ostensibly "neutral" Wikipedia page. But the WC report is just another book - it has been slammed and discredited more than any other government-sanctioned inquiry in US history, and for good reason. Your book has no better standing than many of the others. The American public has agreed for decades. The fact that you can't handle "Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell" says a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Every one else here asserts that your proposal violates those policies. Either you haven't read the policies, or you don't understand them, or you choose to ignore them. And consider this a warning since polite requests don't seem to work: Stop personalizing this discussion. Discuss the issues, not editors. That's it for me for a while. Have a good day. Sundayclose (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You personalized the exchange with your "5198blk news flash" comment. That was a personal attack and was very insulting. You have yet to be polite. Once again, I haven't violated any of your policies until I fail to establish that LHO was involved in U2-related radar. That wasn't even my original goal, but I'll try to jump through your hoops. I will post my findings from the ordered books in a few days. Good day as well. 5198blk (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 2016 (UTC)

Look carefully before you accuse. Sundayclose (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

5198 "You personalized the exchange with your "5198blk news flash" comment. That was a personal attack and was very insulting. You have yet to be polite."

Perhaps you forgot you wrote this, 5198: "BTW, the U-2 was not a "bomber." Sheesh. And when Oswald was at Atsugi, neither the Korean nor Vietnam wars were active. What a crowd this is." So, for the record, you were the one who "personalized" the exchange, you were the one who lobbed the first insult. And I responded to the very sarcastic and disingenuous remark about the Korean and Vietnam wars.

The bottom line here is there are clear and long-established standards on inserting information, no matter how factual or well-sourced, to an article. Most basically, the inserted information HAS to be connected to the subject of the article. In this case, the presence of the CIA and secret programs at the base are only relevant if there is a reliable source which explicitly links Oswald to those activities. If, for example, this was an article about the base itself, this information would likely be usable. Canada Jack (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Once again, I haven't violated any of your policies until I fail to establish that LHO was involved in U2-related radar. That wasn't even my original goal, but I'll try to jump through your hoops. I will post my findings from the ordered books in a few days." It should have been your original goal as the material is not germane to the page without the explicit link. And, you realize that you might save yourself a lot of time and bother (and money) by saying which books and which authors you are referencing here, as many of those who claim these connections are not considered "reliable sources." Jim Marrs is perhaps the most prominent example of such a person. Canada Jack (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"I agree that the U2 was not sinister, but throwing in "other CIA endeavours" as being non-sinister is ludicrous. The CIA, especially during the era we're discussing, was up to all kinds of sinister things." One more bit here, and I'll leave it at that. This was a joke, I should have said "there's nothing sinister about the sinister things the CIA was up to," or words to that effect. The fact that the CIA was up to no good is nothing everyone hasn't known for 41 years, and it's not surprising as every power has been up to "sinister things" for thousands of years. But no evidence has been produced which has convinced mainstream historians that Oswald was working with or for the CIA, or that the CIA had a hand in the assassination, so you have a rather high hurdle to overcome to have this claim included. Canada Jack (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC) "So, for the record, you were the one who "personalized" the exchange" Actually, your opening volley was the word "inane." Do you really expect people to shrug off the use of such vitriol without joining you in the dirt? I tried to be civil up until that comment. I'll buy the books and do the research I want without any interference from the powers that be on the LHO page. It certainly won't be limited to the Encyclopedia Britannica. 5198blk (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Research all you want. But don't even consider the possibility that you can unilaterally decide what goes in the article. I've suggested to no avail that you read several policy pages, but if you plan to go down the path of trying to force something into any article, I suggest that you read WP:CON, WP:OWN, WP:DE, and WP:BLOCK. Sundayclose (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

<< But no evidence has been produced which has convinced mainstream historians that Oswald was working with or for the CIA, or that the CIA had a hand in the assassination, so you have a rather high hurdle to overcome to have this claim included.>> I disagree with your 2nd pronouncement, but I have not made such claims here, nor do I intend to. I understand that I can't "force" anything into an article. That's why I started this discussion in the first place. 5198blk (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you aren't claiming Oswald was connected with the CIA, then you missed the thrust of the comments here. If there is no connection, then there is no place in this article for the mention of those activities at the base. The reference to the spy activities out of that base are only relevant, given the size of the base and the ubiquity of such activity in that era, if the subject of the article is explicitly linked to those activities. But no mainstream historians claim he was involved with the CIA, and the HSCA extensively investigated those claims and found them lacking. So you are stuck with sources who agree with the premise there was a conspiracy to kill the president, which BY DEFINITION, are not mainstream historians. Unless you have a source which a) claims Oswald and Oswald alone killed Kennedy and b) Oswald worked previously with the CIA. I'd be astounded to hear you found such a source. Canada Jack (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You have gotten very carried away. I haven't said anything about Kennedy, and I don't seek to establish that Oswald was working for the CIA at Atsugi or anywhere else. The relevant point would be that Oswald, as a Marine assigned to MACS-1, tracked U2 flights and, in some instances, communicated with the pilot(s). That's it. Just part of his biography. I have received my ordered books and will weigh in again soon. 5198blk (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that Oswald and many other Marines in the MACS-1 unit at Atsugi regularly tracked the U-2 flights and communicated with its pilot regarding requests for information about winds at 90,000 feet. Details of the U-2 situation at Atsugi and the knowledge of the Marine radar operators there are set forth in Jay Epstein's interviews with MACS-1 Marines Dale Dooley, James R. Persons, Joseph Macedo, Miguel Rodriguez, George Wilkins, Jerry E. Pitts, Pete F. Conner, Richard Cyr and Peter Cassisi. My take is that these Marines only knew that this was a very secret, high-tech plane that flew 25,000 feet higher than any other plane in existence. While some of them appear to have learned of the name "U-2," I haven't found ANY evidence that any MACS-1 Marines connected the U-2 to the CIA, or that they knew anything about the missions it was flying. That said, I propose that the following be added to the article: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation developed and directed by the CIA's Richard Bissell.<http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/><https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/the-people-of-the-cia-bissell-an-agency-leader.html> Oswald and numerous other Marine radar operators in his unit, designated MACS-1, frequently tracked the U-2 flights and, on some occasions, communicated with the U-2 pilot(s). <Epstein, Jay: 'The Assassination Chronicles,' pp. 617-619.> There does not appear to be any evidence that Oswald or any other MACS-1 Marines at Atsugi connected the U-2 with the CIA." 5198blk (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As in the past, everything after the first sentence is superfluous, per WP:WEIGHT. We've told you this repeatedly, and finding additional sources that provide no information about the importance of U2 or CIA to Oswald doesn't change anything. At this point the consensus is overwhelmingly against adding anything except the first sentence, if anything. Please don't continue pushing this same argument that you have made numerous times already. Please read WP:IDHT. Thanks for doing the research, but conspiracy blogs are the appropriate place for these details, not Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not pushing an argument. I'm noting that Oswald tracked U-2 flights and communicated with the pilots. That's biographical material. Why do you feel this amounts to presenting a conspiracy theory? And why do you proclaim an "overwhelming consensus" against my proposed edit when not a single other person has weighed in on my latest proposal?5198blk (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Read my comments. I said anything about CIA or U2 is superfluous and should not be included because of WP:WEIGHT. Look at the comments here. You are the only person among several editors who wants to include anything about U2 or CIA regarding Atsugi; that's an overwhelming consensus. This discussion is endless repetition of the same information. I'm again asking an uninvolved editor to close this discussion because nothing substantial has been added for weeks. I'm finished here. I'll politely ask you to move on and stop repeating the same arguments. Otherwise we'll be discussing it at WP:ANI. That's the last time I'm saying that. Sundayclose (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree here with Sunday on this. The citations you've listed only say the radar operators transmitted wind information to some of these flights and tracked them. Therefore, the missions of these flights which we now know more about are tangential and not relevant to this page as, you admit, there is zero evidence that any of these radar operators knew anything about what these flights were doing. No more than, say, noting that a cop directing traffic who occasionally gave a firetruck a wave through was therefore somehow connected to the fire that the firetruck was headed to or had any special insight to the operations of said firetruck or even anything about the fire itself. Since the best you have found is they relayed wind information to and directed these planes - which exactly what we'd expect any radar operator to do - mentioning the U2 flights (let alone the CIA) is mere trivia. Canada Jack (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of "trivia" in the article already, but I think most readers would feel slighted if they found out a detail as rare and unique as tracking U-2 flights and communicating with the pilots was deemed "trivia." Let's take the CIA out of it and go with: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation <http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/> Oswald and numerous other Marine radar operators in his unit, designated MACS-1, frequently tracked the U-2 flights and, on some occasions, communicated with the U-2 pilot(s). <Epstein, Jay: 'The Assassination Chronicles,' pp. 617-619.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign. There is plenty of "trivia" in the article already, but I think most readers would feel slighted if they found out a detail as rare and unique as tracking U-2 flights and communicating with the pilots was deemed "trivia." Let's take the CIA out of it and go with: "Oswald's assignment in Japan was as a radar operator at the Naval Air Station in Atsugi during 1957 and 1958 <http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html></ref>. Atsugi was the operating base for 'Detachment C' of the U-2 spy plane operation <http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/military-history/the-u-2-spy-planes-cold-war-missions/> Oswald and numerous other Marine radar operators in his unit, designated MACS-1, frequently tracked the U-2 flights and, on some occasions, communicated with the U-2 pilot(s). <Epstein, Jay: 'The Assassination Chronicles,' pp. 617-619.>" 5198blk (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. The U2 mission may have been an important Cold War program, but as your source readily admits, the involvement of Oswald and the other radar operators was essentially nil, little more than traffic cops. The U2 work they did probably constituted a minuscule percentage of the radar work they did with all the other aircraft going to and fro - it was - is - a very large base. Using your logic, we should list each and every plane type that Oswald might have directed, we might as well list all military detachments that had a connection to the base when he was here - by singling out the U2 program, there is an implication that he was involved in something bigger - in context, he obviously wasn't, but to show the context would require us to list all the other programs and detachments involved with the base in the time period involved. Which is a huge digression from the thrust of the article - Oswald's biography. Canada Jack (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. The article already includes minutiae of Oswald's life, as perhaps it should (as a biography). But, given his dangling of spy plane secrets to the Russians after he defected, the U-2 is clearly important enough to include here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You have failed to link Oswald to the U2 flights, so this isn't even "minutiae" of Oswald's life, as your source readily admits. Therefore it doesn't warrant inclusion. And everyone else here agrees with this view. As for him "dangling" this information in Russia, the article currently doesn't say that, it says he may have had some information of interest for the Soviets. The very fact that there is no indication of a heightened interest from America's intelligence communities - as the HSCA painstakingly spelled out - he clearly had no access to sensitive information. Canada Jack (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Many problems with your statements:

<<You have failed to link Oswald to the U2 flights>> To the contrary, I have very effectively linked him to the U2 to the extent stated in my proposed edit.

<<this isn't even "minutiae" of Oswald's life, as your source readily admits>> My "source" admits no such thing. This is your invention.

<<And everyone else here agrees with this view.>> I don't see "everyone else" weighing in. How did you reach this conclusion? How many people is this? I'm still waiting for anyone other than "Canada Jack" and "Sundayclose" to label LHO's U2 tracking and communication as useless minutia not worthy of mention - especially since I recently cited sources.

<<As for him "dangling" this information in Russia, the article currently doesn't say that>> Of course the article doesn't say that. Is that your measure of the truth? If additional facts aren't already in the article, they're false? Keep in mind, I'm not bringing up LHO's "spy plane dangling" to include it in the article - I'm only mentioning it to give weight to his U2 tracking. Compared to some of the meanderings already in the article, it's much more significant.

<<he clearly had no access to sensitive information>> This is beyond the scope of my proposed edits. Whether LHO truly had sensitive info isn't the point. The point is that, true or not, he bragged to the Russians about having it.5198blk (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Twelve days have passed without any further response, so I intend to edit the article soon - per my proposed edit of 10/3/16. 5198blk (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing has changed - you don't have consensus for your changes as per the discussion, your changes will be reverted. Canada Jack (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You might do yourself a little favour and read the link here on why Epstein is considered a fringe author - the link deconstructs Epstein's 1978 "Legend" book on Oswald and underlines how much b.s. came from that book which is now seen by some as conspiracy gospel. Within the article you will also get further context as to what life at the base was like etc. http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster70/lob70-oswald-and-japan.pdf Canada Jack (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: You don't seem to understand how things work on Wikipedia despite several editors' efforts to try to help you understand. You alone do not decide what goes into an article. There is no consensus of one person. And the passage of time, whether 12 days, 12 weeks, 12 months, or 12 years does not confer any special privilege on you to act as you please. One thing I can tell you for certain: If you add material to the article with no consensus here, it will be removed immediately. If you add it again and again, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. After your block expires, if you continue to add without consensus, you can look forward to an indefinite block. Sundayclose (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack, my Epstein cites only deal with interviews of Atsugi base personnel who served with Oswald. If you have information to rebut these interviews, please provide it. Furthermore, everyone here has admitted that Oswald tracked U2 flights and communicated with the pilot(s). That's the extent of my edit, and Epstein's interviews support that very well. You've argued it's not worth mentioning here, and I've rebutted you. You have offered nothing new. Mentioning "conspiracy gospel" is way beyond the scope of my edits.

Sundayclose, I see exactly how things work on Wikipedia, and I've lost a lot of the respect I used to have for it as a result. You keep lecturing me that I can't unilaterally edit the article. I keep responding that I fully understand that, so stop telling me I don't. It's demeaning. I have yet to edit the article without exhaustive discussion here in "Talk."

Furthermore, it's silly to argue that two people - "Canada Jack" and "Sundayclose" - comprise a consensus controlling content. There is no consensus of one, nor is there a consensus of two. If need be, I can invite many editors to weigh in on the issue. I urge you to accept my edits before I further propose adding Oswald's bragging about spy plane secrets after he defected to Russia. I could have proposed this long ago, but I decided to keep it "lite." Let me know in which direction you wish to proceed. 5198blk (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack has listed a very interesting article on Oswald in Asia - everyone should read it. http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster70/lob70-oswald-and-japan.pdf Canada Jack, do you rate this as a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack has listed a very interesting article on Oswald in Asia - everyone should read it. http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster70/lob70-oswald-and-japan.pdf Canada Jack, do you rate this as a reliable source? Sorry to repeat - I forgot to sign as I often do. 5198blk (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be crystal clear to any editor committed to the neutral point of view that Lobster (magazine) is a fringe publication engaged in peddling unverified conspiracy theories and is therefore utterly unfit as a reliable source in Wikipedia. As for consensus against adding this inappropriate "Atsugi/CIA/U2 connection" content, please add me, as username "Cullen328" as firmly opposed to its inclusion. There are plenty of conspiracy theory websites where this would be welcomed. Post it there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Cullen, it was Canada Jack that introduced the Lobster link, not me. It's an interesting but unnecessary distraction. Your incorrect characterization of my proposed edits as "Atsugi/CIA/U2 connection" proves that you haven't kept up with the evolution of my proposed edits. My 10/3/16 proposal doesn't mention the CIA at all. Read the discussion more carefully.

Cullen, it was Canada Jack that introduced the Lobster link, not me. It's an interesting but unnecessary distraction. Your incorrect characterization of my proposed edits as "Atsugi/CIA/U2 connection" proves that you haven't kept up with the evolution of my proposed edits. My 10/3/16 proposal doesn't mention the CIA at all. Read the discussion more carefully. 2601:14D:4100:2864:ED2D:64C5:FBB3:FF04 (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: Once again, stop editing while signed out. As for your comment about my lecturing you, as long you make bold and unequivocal statements such as "I intend to edit the article soon - per my proposed edit of 10/3/16" when you are the only person in this discussion in agreement with your proposal, yes I will continue to lecture you. You are already guilty of disruptive editing by refusing to get the point and making the same argument again and again and again despite no support from any editor. And your claim that Canada Jack and I are the only opposition to your proposed edits is simply false. Besides you there are four editors who have commented on this issue, and not one of them supports your proposal. Consensus is not determined by how many times and over what time span you can argue here. Consensus is determined by editors coming to an agreement in a discussion. So far no one here agrees with you. Is there something about consensus on Wikipedia that you don't understand? Is there some reason you believe that one editor can determine consensus? Please explain and we can try to help you understand.

Now, this is the last time I'm saying this. You have pushed this absurdity beyond any measure of reason. Editors have been blocked for less than this. If you continue this nonsense with no support from other editors, I promise that you will be defending yourself at WP:ANI or getting a block for refusing to do so. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as the above posts underlined, you've failed to gain consensus for the edit. Your response to Cullen underlines your refusal to abide by the wikipedia norms. To repeat, 1) a link to the U2/CIA program with Oswald is a claim only supported by conspiracy authors who are not reliable sources, and therefore does not warrant inclusion; 2) your fallback to simply saying he directed and talked to U2 pilots in the course of his duties is mere trivia and has no place here, given the hundreds if not thousands of non-U2 related flights he would have tracked/spoken to. Canada Jack (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

<<a link to the U2/CIA program with Oswald>> Again, I dropped the CIA link long ago, but you keep bringing it up. Try to keep up with the current proposal. If it's support from other editors you demand, I will communicate with others to weigh in. My proposed edits are not "absurdity" and are not "nonsense." You're going with personal insults again. Stay tuned. 2601:14D:4100:2864:ED2D:64C5:FBB3:FF04 (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: STOP editing while signed out. And I suggest that you not even consider canvassing editors to drum up support. That can get you blocked very quickly. Sundayclose (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

<<Besides you there are four editors who have commented on this issue, and not one of them supports your proposal.>> False. There are only 2 - my last revised proposal was on 10/3/16, so you're including editors who commented long before that. And Cullen's recent opinion is irrelevant, since his objection cites the CIA link, which I dropped long ago. Again, stay tuned for other editors to weigh in. 5198blk (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Four editors besides you have commented in this section on LHO's activities at Atsugi. A total of zero have provided any support for any of your suggestions. The bottom line: You have no support in this discussion. Once again, I warn you to not canvass other editors inappropriately. We're not stupid; we can actually watch your edits. And if you plan to canvass off-wiki, that also is easily detected. Sundayclose (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"<<a link to the U2/CIA program with Oswald>> Again, I dropped the CIA link long ago, but you keep bringing it up. Try to keep up with the current proposal."

Migod, 5198, did you even bother to read my post? I will repeat AGAIN why you can't include this material. As per your INITIAL proposal, only conspiracy authors make the claim that Oswald was involved in a substantive way with the U2/ CIA program, therefore, the non-reliably sourced claim can't be included. THEN, as I clearly identify your FALLBACK proposal (i.e., dropping the U2/CIA involvement claim), to wit "your fallback to simply saying he directed and talked to U2 pilots in the course of his duties...", this is ALSO not admissible as this amounts to TRIVIA as he did the same to presumably hundreds or thousands of other non-U2 pilots, your own source admitting there was nothing other than he and other radar operators giving directions, much like traffic cops. Why don't we also mention the many other covert/non-covert operations out of the base which he was "involved" with via his duties as radar operator? Because it's irrelevant, the only "relevance" attached to the U2 flights is that some conspiracy authors like to claim he was substantially involved when by even your source he was not. Your two approaches for inclusion both, therefore, fail to pass muster. Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"False. There are only 2 - my last revised proposal was on 10/3/16, so you're including editors who commented long before that."

Nice try. This is the same thread. You don't alter your proposal mid-stream and then get to say those previous objections now don't count. Canada Jack (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: There's one number that hasn't changed throughout this entire discussion: zero. That's the grand total editors who have stated any support for you anywhere in this discussion. Zero. None. Sundayclose (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

<<We're not stupid; we can actually watch your edits. >> Really? And I thought I was doing back-flips for more than 1.5 months just to be polite!

<<This is the same thread. You don't alter your proposal mid-stream and then get to say those previous objections now don't count>> This is a discussion forum for exactly this kind of back-and-forth. If I say "the sky is green" and someone objects, then I change to "the sky is blue" - the objection to green is still relevant? Listen to yourself.

If you want a new thread, I'm happy to oblige. 2601:14D:4100:2864:F973:3F76:B092:4556 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@5198blk: How many times do we have to tell you? STOP editing while you're signed out. Sundayclose (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2016 (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.

Green Book diary

Is someone going to add the bits in the recently-discovered diary that shows the real target was Texas Governor John Connally, not JFK? He missed and killed JFK by mistake, which takes the wind out of most conspiracy theories, except those surrounding Jack Ruby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:8500:9221:312F:1F48:38DA:282A (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Canada Jack's vote and comments are still here. I don't see any evidence of my having removed anything (I don't even know how to do that yet) or someone else using my password. I haven't given my password to anyone else. Please share with us what you're seeing and how you reached these conclusions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5198blk (talk • contribs) 04:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

Second Sentence is Inaccurate

<<According to five U.S. government investigations,[n 1]>>

The current article's second sentence is inaccurate. The footnote lists five investigations, one of which is the Dallas Police Department. That is not a "U.S. government investigation." 5198blk (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The Dallas PD is part of a U.S. government. One could quibble and say that the HSCA was likewise not part of the actual government, meaning the cabinet of ministers. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right - the sentence isn't quite correct. I've gone ahead and adjusted it, feel free to change it back if anyone wants. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I will leave it at this. The agruments for leaving the lead sentence as is or changing the wording stand. I agree that LHO is primarily known for the assassination. I absolutely disagree that he is described correctly with the American Sniper title. I am NOT confusing an occupation with manner of killing a President. That sentence is. Very obviously and to the detriment of Wikipedia's reputation of unbiased and neutral content. I went through the assassinations page and not one assassin in the United States section -nor any of them universally across over 100 assassins listed were described by the action of the assasination, but rather who they were outside of the act.

Canada Jack has a perfect way of stating it, rather than my clunky attempts to reword the sentence: "LHO was the sniper who shot and killed American president JFK." End of problem. End of confusion between title/occupation and "the killing of a President"

I endorse what DIY and Canada Jack have stated.

Also: Sundayclose: It is true that "Oswald is well known, not just for assassinating Kennedy, but also for the manner in which he did it; much has been written about how he planned and set up his sniper's nest." Except he didn't "set up his snipers nest" I will try to avoid the wrath that will come down on me by stating that it wasn't a sniper's nest at all, becaause everyone loves that description. The recreated "sniper's Nest" on the 6th Floor Museum is often critisized for it's misplacement of box "A" (one of the Rolling Reader boxes) in the configuration the Dallas Police used 3 days after the assasination rather than follow photographic evidence from November 22nd, which tends to supercede the way the police set up the scene 3 days later.

How is it that "much has been written about how he planned and set up his sniper's nest" per Sundayclose and has so often been quoted, and referred to? The originator of this legend is William Manchester in his highly repected "The Death of a President" (1967) where he blatantly stated that, ". . . sometime during the morning . . . Oswald built his sniper's perch of boxes in the southeast corner. . ."

This accusation needs to have the bottom knocked out since it has become so widely accepted that it requires specific evidence from the Warren Report to set the record straight: The boxes, in fact, were placed there by a work crew. As the Warren Commission explained, on the sixth floor that morning, "Depository employees were laying a new floor at the west end and transferring books from the west to the east end of the building . . . from the west wall to near the east wall in preparation for the laying of the floor. Blairware (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

References

You are both right and wrong on this question, Blairware - correct in that the stacks of boxes which concealed the sniper from anyone looking across the floor were indeed placed there by the work crew, but incorrect in the placement of the four boxes the sniper used to sit on and fire upon. So, the "nest" was set up by the workers; the "perch" was set up by Oswald, as concluded by the WC.

From Chapter 4 of the Warren Report: Below the southeast corner window on the sixth floor was a large carton of books measuring approximately 18 by 12 by 14 inches which had been moved from a stack along the south wall. Atop this carton was a small carton marked "Rolling Readers," measuring approximately 13 by 9 by 8 inches. In front of this small carton and resting partially on the windowsill was another small "Rolling Readers" carton. These two small cartons had been moved from a stack about three aisles away. The boxes in the window appeared to have been arranged as a convenient gun rest. Behind these boxes was another carton placed on the floor on which a man sitting could look southwesterly down Elm Street over the top of the "Rolling Readers" cartons...

...The carton on the windowsill and the large carton below the window contained no prints which could be identified as being those of Lee Harvey Oswald.The other "Rolling Readers" carton, however, contained a palmprint and a fingerprint which were identified by Latona as being the left palmprint and right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Commission has considered the possibility that the cartons might have been moved in connection with the work that was being performed on the sixth floor on November 22. Depository employees were laying a new floor at the west end and transferring books from the west to the east end of the building. The "Rolling Readers" cartons, however, had not been moved by the floor layers and had apparently been taken to the window from their regular position for some particular purpose. The "Rolling Readers" boxes contained, instead of books, light blocks used as reading aids. They could be easily adjusted and were still solid enough to serve as a gun rest.

The box on the floor, behind the three near the window, had been one of these moved by the floor layers from the west wall to near the east side of the building in preparation for the laying of the floor... In evaluating the significance of these fingerprint and palmprint identifications, the Commission considered the possibility that Oswald handled these cartons as part of his normal duties. Since other identifiable prints were developed on the cartons, the Commission requested that they be compared with the prints of the 12 warehouse employs who, like Oswald, might have handled the cartons. They were also compared with the prints of those law enforcement officials who might have handled the cartons. The results of this investigation are fully discussed in chapter VI, page 249. Although a person could handle a carton and not leave identifiable prints, none of these employees except Oswald left identifiable prints on the cartons. This finding, in addition to the freshness of one of the prints and the presence of Oswald's prints on two of the four cartons and the paper bag led the Commission to attach some probative value to the fingerprint and palmprint identifications in reaching the conclusion that Oswald was at the window from which the shots were fired, although the prints do not establish the exact time he was there.

Indeed, therefore, the Warren Commission determined that Oswald in all likelihood set up the perch from where he fired the shots, carrying some boxes for the perch from elsewhere, moving the box he sat on which had been placed nearby by the workers. Canada Jack (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well explained distinction, Canada Jack. Sundayclose (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up - there are a lot of comments appearing under the "second sentence" topic that appear to have been intended for the earlier "first sentence" topic. I can understand the confusion, but the contributors may want to move their posts. 5198blk (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)